American Psychologist

A Historical Review of LGBTQ Workers’ Rights and Industrial-Organizational Psychology’s Role in the Study of Their Workplace Experiences --Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: AMP-2019-1063 Full Title: A Historical Review of LGBTQ Workers’ Rights and Industrial-Organizational Psychology’s Role in the Study of Their Workplace Experiences Abstract: In the 50 years since the Stonewall Riots, psychological science has played a key role in our understanding and treatment of issues surrounding LGBTQ rights. Of these pertinent topics include workplace experiences of sexual minorities and gender non- conforming individuals (e.g., workplace discrimination of LGBTQ targets; Ruggs et al., 2013). The research of LGBTQ individuals in the workplace is a topic squarely in the domain of industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology. In this article, we outline the history of I/O psychologists’ interface with the LGBTQ movement, through review of major research trends within the field from the late twentieth century to present date. Further, we turn to major outside influences such as trends in other psychological disciplines (e.g., DSM removal of “homosexuality”), various historical social movements (i.e., the Gay Liberation Movement) and legal changes (e.g., recent change in legal interpretation of Title VII) which have served as catalysts for discussion of LGBTQ workplace experiences. Additionally, we discuss the influence of Division 14 of the American Psychological Association (APA) —formally known as the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology (SIOP)—concerning LGBTQ rights. We conclude our review with a discussion of current research trends in I/O and discuss implications for the current administration’s plan to implement a transgender military ban. Article Type: Special Issue Article - Stonewall Keywords: LGBTQ; LGBTQ Workplace Rights; Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Historical Review Corresponding Author: Arturia T Melson-Silimon University of Georgia Athens, GA UNITED STATES Corresponding Author E-Mail: [email protected];[email protected] Corresponding Author Secondary Information: Corresponding Author's Institution: University of Georgia Other Authors: Nicholas P Salter, Ph.D. Nathan T Carter, Ph.D. Author Comments: Corresponding Author's Secondary Institution: First Author: Arturia T Melson-Silimon Order of Authors Secondary Information: Manuscript Region of Origin: UNITED STATES Suggested Reviewers: Mike Zickar, Ph.D. Bowling Green State University [email protected] Dr. Zickar has previous experience writing historical review and research concerning the field of I/O specifically. Michelle Hebl, Ph.D. Rice University [email protected] Dr. Hebl has experience and expertise in LGBTQ worker-focused research in the field

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation of I/O Larry Martinez, Ph.D. Portland State University [email protected] Dr. Martinez has experience and expertise concerning LGBTQ worker-focused research in the field of I/O Opposed Reviewers: Order of Authors: Arturia T Melson-Silimon Nicholas P Salter, Ph.D. Nathan T Carter, Ph.D. Manuscript Classifications: Policy; sexual orientation; sexuality

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation Cover Letter

Dear Dr. Rutherford and Dr. Hegarty,

It is with great enthusiasm that I submit the manuscript entitled: LGBTQ Workplace Rights and Experiences, authored by myself along with my co-authors, Nicholas P. Salter and Nathan T. Carter, for editorial consideration at American Psychologist as part of the upcoming special issue “50 Years Since Stonewall: The Science and Politics of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity.” My contact information for future correspondence is included in my signature below. Contact information for my co-authors is included on the subsequent page.

In this article, we address the special issue’s goal by reflecting on the history of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology’s interface with the LGBTQ rights movement, through review of major research trends within the field from the late twentieth century to date using four distinct historical eras. Within each era, we discuss major outside influences such as various historical social movements (i.e., the Gay Liberation Movement) and legal changes (e.g., recent change in legal interpretation of Title VII) which have served as catalysts for discussion of LGBTQ workplace experiences. We suggest that changes in public attitudes, legal context, and public policy directly influenced the field of I/O as organizations experienced increased pressure to integrate LGBTQ employees within the workforce. We not only discuss academic contributions made in the field, but we discuss the influence of the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology (SIOP) concerning LGBTQ rights and advocacy. We conclude our review with a discussion of current research trends in I/O and discuss implications for the current administration’s plan to implement a transgender military ban

The current manuscript has not been previously submitted to American Psychologist nor has it been previously published. The current manuscript is not under concurrent consideration elsewhere.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the status of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Arturia T. Melson-Silimon University of Georgia Department of Psychology Psychology Building 125 Baldwin Street Athens, GA 30602 Fax: (706) 542-3274 [email protected]

Nicholas P. Salter, Ph.D. Ramapo College of New Jersey Department of Psychology 505 Ramapo Valley Road Mahwah, NJ 07430 Phone: (201) 684-7765 [email protected]

Nathan T. Carter, Ph.D. University of Georgia Department of Psychology Psychology Building 125 Baldwin Street Athens, GA 30602 Fax: (706) 542-3274 [email protected]

Title page with All Author Information

LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 1

A Historical Review of LGBTQ Workers’ Rights and Industrial-Organizational

Psychology’s Role in the Study of Their Workplace Experiences

Arturia Melson-Silimon The University of Georgia

Nicholas P. Salter, Ph.D. Ramapo College of New Jersey

Nathan T. Carter, Ph.D. The University of Georgia

Masked Manuscript without Author Information

LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 1

A Historical Review of LGBTQ Workers’ Rights and Industrial-Organizational

Psychology’s Role in the Study of Their Workplace Experiences

LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 2

Abstract

In the 50 years since the Stonewall Riots, psychological science has played a key role in our understanding and treatment of issues surrounding LGBTQ rights. Of these pertinent topics include workplace experiences of sexual minorities and gender non-conforming individuals (e.g., workplace discrimination of LGBTQ targets; Ruggs et al., 2013). The research of LGBTQ individuals in the workplace is a topic squarely in the domain of industrial and organizational

(I/O) psychology. In this article, we outline the history of I/O psychologists’ interface with the

LGBTQ movement, through review of major research trends within the field from the late twentieth century to present date. Further, we turn to major outside influences such as trends in other psychological disciplines (e.g., DSM removal of “homosexuality”), various historical social movements (i.e., the Gay Liberation Movement) and legal changes (e.g., recent change in legal interpretation of Title VII) which have served as catalysts for discussion of LGBTQ workplace experiences. Additionally, we discuss the influence of Division 14 of the American

Psychological Association (APA) —formally known as the Society of Industrial Organizational

Psychology (SIOP)—concerning LGBTQ rights. We conclude our review with a discussion of current research trends in I/O and discuss implications for the current administration’s plan to implement a transgender military ban.

LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 3

A Historical Review of LGBTQ Workers’ Rights and Industrial-Organizational

Psychology’s Role in the Study of Their Workplace Experiences

For decades, researchers in Industrial Organizational (I/O) psychology have been interested in topics surrounding workplace discrimination, inclusion, diversity and employment opportunity (Colella, 2011). Within the literature, topics of interest include: causes of stereotyping and prejudice expression (e.g., justification suppression model; Crandall &

Eshleman, 2003), how discrimination affects various target populations (e,g, racial-ethnic minorities and disabled individuals; Colella et al, 2012; Follmer and Jones, 2018), and how to promote diversity through recruitment and selection efforts (Kravitz, 2008). Of special groups studied within this domain include sexual minorities and gender non-conforming individuals.

Compared to other minority groups, there is currently no federal statute that explicitly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

However, the study of LGBTQ individuals is not new to the field of I/O. Research trends in the study of LGBTQ workplace experiences include antecedents and effects of identity disclosure

(e.g.,Griffith & Hebl, 2002), how organizations can encourage inclusion (and discourage discrimination) through organizational initiatives such as training programs (e.g., Lindsey et al.,

2015), and antecedents of perceived discrimination in the workplace (e.g., Ragins & Cornwall,

2007). The purpose of this paper is to reflect on such research through an historical review of

I/O’s interface with the LGBTQ rights movement from the late twentieth century onward.

Within our review, we will provide an overview of research within the field surrounding workplace experiences of LGBTQ individuals. This will include discussion surrounding early beginnings of LGBTQ research among multiple disciplines and its impact on I/O specifically as well as research conducted by workplace psychologists throughout the years. Not only will we LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 4 discuss major research trends throughout the last fifty years but discuss outside influences that have served to stimulate psychological research and discourse. We further suggest that historical movements such as the Gay Liberation Movement and legal changes surrounding LGBTQ rights broadly, have served as major catalysts for discussion of LGBTQ workplace experiences. We conclude our review with discussion of current research trends in I/O in relation to LGBTQ workers’ experiences. We also discuss the recently proposed transgender military ban and its implications for future research.

Pre-Gay Liberation Movement: A Silent Era (Prior to the 1970s)

Prior to the 1970s, sexual minorities experienced explicit and systemic oppression through multiple social structures. To engage in non-heterosexual relations was seen as deviant.

From a legal perspective, for example, sodomy (i.e. intimate acts engaged between two males) was considered a criminal offense (Herek, 1993). From a psychiatric perspective, many psychiatrists adopted the view that non-heterosexuality was pathological (Drescher, 2010). As a result, it was common practice for psychiatrists to attempt treatment of gay and lesbian patients through use of psychoanalytic methodology (Drescher, 2010). By 1952, the term

“homosexuality” was included and classified as a “sociopathic personality disorder” in the

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-I; APA, 1952). Despite evidence provided as counter argument—such as empirical evidence provided by psychologist Evelyn Hooker (1957)—the diagnosis remained in the DSM until 1973 (Drescher, 2010). During this time, transgender was not in the DSM, in part, because this concept did not become widely used until decades later

(Kuhn, 2011). The term, “transexualism” was later included in 1980 in the DSM-III (APA,

1980). This diagnosis later became “gender identity disorder” (GID; APA, 1994) and was eventually recategorized as “gender dysphoria” (GD; APA, 2013). Further, public conversation LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 5 mainly surrounded the lesbian and gay population and as a result, laws and psychiatric practices explicitly addressed—and discouraged—same-sex relations (Drescher, 2010, Kuhn, 2011,

Herek, 1993). However, other identities, such as transgender, queer, and gender non-conforming, had yet to be acknowledged by society.

Around this time, the field of Industrial-Organizational psychology (I/O) made its premiere as a field in America. Division 14 of the American Psychological Association (APA), later known as the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), was originally founded in 1945 (Koppes & Pickren, 2007). The field’s early name, “Industrial and Business

Psychology”, reflected the primary interest of the field at the time, which involved selection- focused research (Koppes & Pickren, 2007). Notably, psychologists aided the government in their quest to select draftees for World War I (WWI) and World War II (WWII; Vinchur &

Koppes, 2007). Although this mostly involved the development of screening tools which assessed intelligence, such as Army Alpha and Army Beta, psychologists also incorporated a psychiatric framework when screening-out potential draftees. As such, draftees identified as

“homosexual” were rejected (Berube, 1990). Although this screening procedure was loosened to meet quotas in selection of draftees during WWII, strict “anti-homosexuality” policies returned following the end of the war—any service member identified as gay faced immediate dishonorable discharge (Berube, 1990; D’Emilio, 1983; Faderman, 1991; Herek, 1993).

Selection-centered research was also influenced by the Civil Rights Movement. Although there were influential gay activists involved in the Civil Rights Movement, such as Bayard

Rustin, these members were left out of the limelight, as black civil rights activist were weary of potential stigma and backlash, and feared that inclusion of gay issues would potentially undermine the movement’s agenda (Carbado & Weise, 2004). A direct outcome of the Civil LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 6

Rights Movement was the adoption of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which formally prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, and national origin. As a result of Title VII and subsequent court rulings, employers were forbidden from using selection tools that could result in differential selection rates (i.e., adverse impact) of members belonging to the protected classes (race, sex, color, religion, and national origin; Zickar

& Gibby, 2007). During the 1960s and 1970s, I/O psychologists began providing their expertise in the matter and devoted a significant amount of time to scrutinize selection tools in determination of fairness (Zickar & Gibby, 2007). These studies were primarily interested in determining potential testing bias against protected classes explicitly described within the legislation such as racial minorities (e.g., Cleary, 1968). Sexual minorities were not considered a protected class under Title VII, and therefore organizations were not prohibited from discrimination on the basis of sexual identity. As such, selection research during this time was not concerned with potential employment discrimination against LGB individuals. As can be seen later in the timeline, trends in the selection literature have continued to be directly influenced by changes in the nation’s legal climate (Zickar & Gibby, 2007). In sum, during this time there was no I/O research of which we are aware explicitly studying LGBTQ issues.

Post Gay Liberation Movement: A Ripple Effect to Workplace Research (1970s-1980s)

Although majority of political protest during the 1960s surrounded mistreatment and inequalities experienced by African-Americans and women specifically, gay rights activists began organizing small demonstrations—especially within major cities housing large sexual minority populations, such as New York City and San Francisco (Kuhn, 2011). Nevertheless, the

1969 Stonewall Riots is often cited as the beginning of the “Gay Liberation Movement” (Kuhn,

2011). LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 7

The Gay Liberation Movement set the stage for LGB activism as individuals identifying as lesbian and gay stood together in solidarity and pride from coast to coast (Kuhn, 2011).

During this time, numerous gay rights organizations began to emerge including the Gay

Liberation Front (GLF) and the Gay Activists Alliance (GAA; Kuhn, 2011). In the 1970s, there was an increase in public demonstration such as the “Christopher Street Gay Liberation Day;” marchers carried signs with phrases such as “Gay is good as straight!” and “Out of the closets and into the streets” in effort to de-stigmatize LGB identities (Kuhn, 2011). This movement also led to protest concerning the inclusion of “homosexuality” in the DSM, thereby sparking discussion and debate within the APA (Drescher, 2010; Gittings, 2008; Kameny, 2009;

Silverstein, 2009). This led to the official de-categorization and later removal of diagnosis within the DSM (Drescher, 2010). It is important to note that although the precursor to “gender dysphoria” was added to the DSM in 1980, transgender inclusion in the LGB movement did not arise until the early and mid-1990s (Armstrong, 2002; Green, 2004; Stone, 2009). As a result, the direct aftermath of the Gay Liberation Movement concerned LGB inclusion and rights, specifically.

As a result of the Gay Liberation movement, society was left with questions concerning implications for integration of openly LGB individuals in the workplace. For this reason, scholars often cite the 1970s as the beginning of LGB worker-focused research (Croteau, 1996;

Elliot, 1993). During this time, research aimed to explore arguments and claims made by gay rights activists during the Gay Liberation Movement. Specifically, this research was primarily interested in exploring the prevalence of discrimination experienced by sexual minorities, as this was a significant concern of the population, and still is (Levine & Leonard, 1984). Therefore, early investigation of LGB worker-experiences surrounded American attitudes toward workplace LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 8 discrimination of LGB applicants and workers, prevalence of discriminatory practices within organizations, and potential links between anticipated discrimination and disclosure in the workplace. Majority of these early studies, however, were conducted by researchers outside of the field of I/O. Nevertheless, the earliest of LGB-worker oriented research broadly can be traced back to public attitudes polls, which aimed to study American attitudes toward sexual minorities

(Levitt & Klassen, 1974).

In 1970, a four-year investigation funded by the National Institute of Mental Health began with a purpose to investigate American perceptions of lesbian and gay individuals. This portion of investigation was led by Levitt and Klassen (1974), who were within the fields of psychiatry and sexuality research respectively. Over 3,000 respondents of a representative sample participated in interview and were asked questions related to perceptions and attitudes toward lesbian and gay individuals. Interview items also assessed perceptions of the acceptability—or unacceptability—of workplace discrimination against sexual minorities.

Results revealed that majority of the sample were strongly opposed to openly gay individuals holding “prestigious” occupations (e.g., doctor). For example, 77.2% of the sample disagreed with the statement, “homosexual men should be allowed to work as court judges.” This early poll also explored common beliefs which served as justification for expressed prejudice. Participants were presented with items centered around stereotypes of the “homosexual worker” (e.g.,

“homosexuals corrupt fellow workers sexually”) and were asked to provide their level of agreement. Results suggested that majority of participants indicated strong opposition to LGB individuals holding positions in government and early education with justification that they posed a threat to security. Although Levitt and Klassen (1974) were not I/O psychologists, results of this poll had major implications for the study of sexual minorities within the LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 9 employment context. Specifically, results of these polls supported gay rights activists’ claims that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was a legitimate concern for openly out individuals. Results of their study served as grounds for subsequent study on workplace discrimination and unique workplace experiences of LGB individuals (e.g., deciding to disclose identity; Schneider, 1986).

During this time, research went beyond investigation of general attitudes to highlight the prevalence of employment discrimination practices within organizations. As highlighted by researchers, these organizational practices mirrored public attitudes, legal and societal practices in-place at the time (Levine, 1979). As briefly mentioned, many jurisdictions criminalized same- sex relationships, and any service member believed to be gay faced immediate dishonorable discharge from the military (Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Herek, 1993; Levine, 1979; Saghir &

Robins, 1973; Weinberg & Williams, 1974). Results from a review of such information, led by sociologist Levine (1979) suggested it was commonplace for organizations to review arrest history and military service history in the selection process resulting in the discrimination of sexual minorities. Additionally, results of survey and qualitative data suggested that LGB individuals feared disclosure of their identity would yield fewer opportunity and put them at risk for discrimination when compared to their heterosexual peers (Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Levine &

Leonard, 1984). Although, this research was conducted by researchers in fields outside of I/O, such as sociology and human sexuality, these studies have been credited within the I/O literature

(Croteau, 1996). For example, results from Levine and colleagues were cited in one of the first

LGB-worker oriented papers written by researchers Day and Shoenrade (1997) which was published in Personnel Psychology—one of I/O’s prestigious journals. LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 10

The Gay Liberation Movement encouraged individuals to take pride in their identities

(Kuhn, 2011). As a result, there was an increased need to understand implications for individuals coming out within public domains, including the workplace (Hall, 1986; Levine and Leonard,

1984; Schneider, 1986). Such research highlighted “risk factors” likely to deter LGB individuals from workplace disclosure (e.g., income, previous workplace discrimination with prior employer; Schneider, 1986). Similarly, research suggested LGB individuals utilized various concealment strategies (e.g., dissociation; Hall, 1986) when tasked with identity management within the corporate setting. Research during this time also began to explore well-being outcomes associated with ability—or inability—to disclose at work. One representative study from this era, for example, conducted by Levine and Leonard (1984), suggested that within a sample of lesbian employees, majority of those who were closeted reported being dissatisfied with their decision to refrain from coming out within their organization. From a practice perspective, research also began to emerge investigating the impacts of organizational and environmental factors likely to influence an individual’s decision to disclose. For example, results from a study conducted by Schneider (1986) suggested the coworker dynamics and interpersonal trust influenced an individual’s decision to disclose one’s sexual identity. These findings continue to have practical implications for organizational practice. Research in self- disclosure of one’s identity remains a pertinent topical area in I/O and will be discussed in the eras that follow.

From Policy to Practice: Age of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (1990s-2009)

As we approached the twenty-first century, activism and awareness surrounding LGB rights continued to rise (Kuhn, 2011). During this time, the LGB movement had expanded to support transgender inclusion (Armstrong, 2002; Devor & Matte, 2004; Kuhn, 2011; Stone, LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 11

2009). In fact, use and acknowledgement of the acronym “LGBTQ” became widespread during this time (Kuhn, 2011). As increased debate surrounded how to successfully integrate LGBTQ individuals in the workplace, I/O psychology experienced an increase in research to directly address these public and political concerns (Croteau, 1996). By this time, I/O had now expanded to encompass both lenses of I/O—industrial and organizational—as Division 14 of the APA had changed their name to “Industrial and Organizational Psychology” approximately two decades prior (Koppes & Pickren, 2007). Therefore, LGBTQ worker-oriented research during this time explored implications for both potential organizational-and individual-level outcomes.

Following President Clinton’s inauguration in 1993, the newly appointed president announced intention to end the exclusion of LGB individuals from the United States military.

During this time, psychologists in other disciplines provided their expertise to the debate. For example, social psychologist Gregory Herek (1993) published a timely article within the

American Psychologist that provided empirical review relevant to potential integration of openly gay and lesbian individuals into the military. In doing so, the social psychologist offered scientific support for integration including empirical evidence refuting concerns voiced by the

Department of Defense (DOD; e.g., “gay people are not competent to perform their duties”). The military ban was officially replaced with the policy, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) in 1994.

This policy only protected closeted service members—outed service members could still face immediate discharge. For this reason, thousands of service members were discharged under

DADT on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination (Gates & Saunders, 2016). Although enactment of DADT did not allow for sexual minorities to openly serve in the military, there were several important implications for the new policy regarding the study of LGB workers in LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 12

America. Psychologists were given space to weigh-in on the topic of LGB individuals at work and dispel misconceptions of LGB employees (Herek, 1993).

The nation experienced an increased interest in understanding implications for integration of LGB employees within the civilian workforce. This interest, in part, can be attributed to rapid changes in public policy and legislation. In 1995, President Clinton issued Executive Order

12968 into effect. Prior to the executive order, security clearances for federal employment could be denied on the basis of sexual identity with the rationale that a person’s identity as a sexual minority could potentially lead to breach in security (Gates & Sanders, 2016; Lewis, 2001).

Executive Order 12968 added sexual orientation as a protected identity (Gates & Sanders, 2016).

In 1998, Executive Order 13087 was enacted, thereby adding sexual orientation as a protected class concerning equal employment opportunity for federal workers (Gates & Sanders, 2016).

Regarding the private sector, sexual orientation remained unrecognized as a protected class under Title VII. Therefore, employees belonging to the private sector were unable to make claims with the Equal Employee Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

By the 1990s, state and local governments also began to adopt non-discrimination legislation to include sexual orientation as a protected class (Day & Schoenrade, 1997; Graham,

1986; Seal, 1991; Susser, 1986). As a direct result, firms began to publicly announce intent to implement diversity initiatives and prevent workplace discrimination of LGB employees (Day &

Shoenrade, 1997). During this time, some firms began to implement specific LGB anti- discrimination policy (Neely Martinez, 1993). Addition of the two aforementioned executive orders and state anti-discrimination laws served as catalyst for debate surrounding inclusion of sexual orientation (and later gender identity) as protected classes under federal law. This debate continues to have implications for organizational practice involving selection and employment LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 13 discrimination. Further, the addition of these documents sent an important message to the corporate world: organizations could no longer turn the blind-eye from LGBTQ rights entirely.

With new social and political pressures, organizations were left with questions concerning how to successfully implement anti-discrimination practices and integrate sexual minorities within the workforce. As a result, there was an increase in research investigating workplace prejudice experienced by LGBTQ workers.

Review of major legislation suggests that during this time there was major “push and pull” concerning LGBTQ workplace rights. Although DADT continued to allow for the explicit discrimination of outed LGBTQ persons, new executive orders and state laws began to emerge to protect LGBTQ civilian employees. In an effort to grapple with these changes, there was increased discussion concerning discrimination against LGBTQ persons within the employment context. As a result, I-O research began to explicitly study workplace experiences of LGBTQ workers. These studies predominantly explored experiences of discrimination and advanced prior knowledge on disclosure. As we approached the twenty-first century, LGBTQ worker-oriented research began to make its debut in the field’s top journals such as the Journal of Applied

Psychology (e.g.,Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001) as various scholars paved the way for substantive empirical discovery.

The study of disclosure continued during this era. Although there had been study of workplace disclosure prior (e.g., Schneider, 1986), this research had predominantly been conducted by researchers outside of I/O, such as sociology, and had been qualitative in nature

(Croteau, 1996). By the 1990s, however, there was an increase in publications within well- known I/O journals which empirically investigated the effects of self-disclosure on well-being and experienced discrimination. In fact, one of the first LGBTQ worker-focused studies LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 14 investigated the effects of sexual identity disclosure on work attitudes. This article was published within Personnel Psychology and was conducted by organizational psychologist Nancy Day and social psychologist Patricia Schoenrade in 1997. Results suggested that ability to express sexual identity in the workplace was associated with positive outcomes such as higher affective commitment, higher job satisfaction, higher perceived managerial support, lower role ambiguity and low work-life conflict. Results of similar studies during this time also suggested effects of disclosure on work satisfaction through mechanisms such as occupational stress specifically (e.g.

Driscoll et al., 1996). Therefore, it was of organizations’ best interest to understand antecedents and consequents of coming out in the workplace. As a result of growing societal and organizational demand, increased research exploring antecedents and consequents of disclosure has continued. By the early 2000s, several empirical studies exploring disclosure of sexual orientation were published within the Journal of Applied Psychology (Griffith & Hebl, 2002;

Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, 2007).

Within the disclosure literature at this time, there was also increased interest in the underlying processes involved in the process of disclosure through use of theories in identity management (Button, 2004; Day & Schoenrade, 1997; Welle & Button, 2004). Aside from understanding the internal processes involved in disclosure, there was also aim within the I/O literature to better understand potential factors that may encourage or discourage LGB employees from disclosing at work (e.g., fear of stigma and perceived workplace discrimination;

Ragins & Cornwell, 2002; Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, 2007) including organizational-level antecedents of workplace self-disclosure (Day & Shoenrade, 1997; Driscoll, Kelly & Fassinger,

1996; Griffith & Hebl, 2002). These studies established the importance of LGB worker-oriented organizational policy, perceived organizational support, interpersonal relationships and trust LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 15 among coworkers for disclosure behaviors. More importantly, results of these studies had implications for organizational climate and policy, as scholars suggested organizations looking to recruit, hire, and retain LGB employees incorporate policy and training specifically encouraging diversity and inclusivity on the basis of sexual identity (Griffith & Hebl, 2002). Disclosure research during this time also had implication for management training as management support was suggested to influence LGB employees’ job attitudes and disclosure (Day & Schroenrade,

1997, 2000).

In 2001, one of the most influential articles to date concerning the study of LGBTQ workers was published within the Journal of Applied Psychology. This article was titled, Pink

Triangles: Antecedents and Consequences of Perceived Discrimination Against Gay and Lesbian

Employees. Through empirical study funded by the Wayne Placek grant from the APA, I/O psychologists Belle Ragins and John Cornwell (2001) investigated potential antecedents of discrimination; potential relations between perceived discrimination and disclosure; and individual- and organizational-level outcomes of perceived discrimination of lesbian and gay employees. Unlike other prior studies exploring lesbian and gay employee experiences, Ragins and Cornwell collected data on a larger sample of 534 participants through use of a field study design. Results from their study suggested that organizational-level variables such as organizational supportive practices, nondiscrimination policy, and organizational acceptance of partners influenced perceived discrimination. Additionally, results of this study suggested that perceived workplace discrimination had consequence for organizational commitment, turnover intention, job satisfaction and promotion. This study has been cited by other scholars within the field over six hundred times, suggesting that this study continues to be an influential piece of literature within the field concerning the study of LGBTQ workplace experiences. LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 16

Additionally, research within the workplace discrimination literature offered several practical implications for organizations. For example, research during this time suggested organizations implement practices to affirm sexual identity in effort to positively affect job attitudes (Button, 2001). In a field study led by I/O psychologist Michelle Hebl and her colleagues (2002), confederate applicants wearing paraphernalia marked “Gay and Proud” experienced significantly higher interpersonal discrimination by employers when compared to confederates in the control condition. Results of this study had major implications for potential employer bias, specifically regarding use of interviews. As with the study conducted by Ragins and Cornwell (2001), this study was a field study which continues to be a rare and underutilized design due to research constraints. In sum, discrimination research during this time not only provided organizations with implications for climate and culture, but addressed implications for potential hiring discrimination.

As transgender persons were finally given a seat at the table within the LGBT community, several studies emerged during this era highlighting workplace-related stigma experienced by transgender employees specifically (Budge, Tebbe, & Howard, 2010; Dietert &

Dentice, 2009; Gagne, Tewksbury, & McGaughey,1997; Irwin, 2002; Schilt, 2006; Schilt &

Connell, 2007). Similar to early research following the experiences of other minority sub- populations, early research on transgender employee populations investigated the prevalence of experienced stigma and prejudice experienced by targets (e.g., Dietert & Dentice, 2009) and factors associated with disclosure of transition (e.g., Budge et al., 2010; Gagne et al., 1997). This research heavily relied on use of interview methodology (e.g., Budge et al., 2010; Dietert &

Dentice, 2009; Schilt & Connell, 2007). For example, in one of the earliest studies conducted by sociologists Gagne and McGaughey (1993), 65 participants discussed their coming-out LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 17 experiences. Although this study looked at themes in disclosure within different contexts, participants were able to discuss outcomes of disclosure within the workplace. Qualitative results suggested that the workplace was the least likely context in which a participant had a positive coming out experience as reported outcomes included demotion, termination, and workplace harassment.

Early beginnings of research in transgender workplace experiences were conducted in areas outside of I/O. However, these studies were influential as they considered transgender experiences within the LGBT worker-oriented literature. Further, these studies laid the foundation for research to come in the following era concerning importance of disclosure on job-related outcomes and organizational-level factors that can influence an individual’s transition process (Law et al., 2011; Martinez et al., 2017). Further, these early studies suggested that transgender individuals had different workplace experiences when compared to their LGB peers.

For example, results of a study conducted by sociologists Schilt and Connell (2007) suggest that following transition, participants reported that cross-gender dynamics between coworkers changed potentially due to coworkers’ gender stereotypes. These results suggest that while there may be positive experiences following disclosure, as with LGB employees, there is an added layer of intricacy that comes along with this acceptance when employees complete transition

(Law et al., 2011). As a result, researchers of later studies provided suggestion that scholars avoid merely lumping in transgender participants into LGB samples (Law et al., 2011).

As previously mentioned, there was much discussion within society during this time concerning LGBTQ rights and discrimination against this population. To determine in what other ways the field of I/O could contribute to this issue, in 2003 then SIOP president Anne

Marie Ryan proposed a SIOP LGBT ad-hoc committee be formed to evaluate and encourage LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 18

LGBT voice within Division 14 (Chao, 2003; Martinez, Sasso, & Salter, 2014). Later that year, the ad-hoc committee was implemented under Ryan’s successor Michael Burke. The committee was led by its first co-chairs, Scholars Scott Button and Michelle Hebl with the goals to (a) encourage LGBT specific research within the field and (b) promote LGBT advocacy within the

SIOP community (Button & Welle, 2004; Martinez, Sasso, & Salter, 2014). The LGBT committee has also been concerned with increasing LGBT related research through accessibility of working samples and encouraging collaborative culture between practice and science

(Johnson & Law, 2009). In 2007, the ad-hoc LGBT committee implemented its first annual

LGBT research award in order to recognize substantive research contribution presented at the society’s annual conference (King & Hebl, 2007). During these early years, this presence of this ad-hoc committee sent an important message: the field of I/O Psychology supports the LGBTQ population.

Present Day: Current Research and Challenges (2010-Present)

In 2010, President Obama announced plans to repeal DADT. Prior to the official repeal of DADT, researchers belonging to various disciplines provided support for this decision as empirical evidence suggested that DADT did more harm than good, by specifically putting closeted service members at risk for sexual, physical, and verbal assault (e.g., Burks, 2011) and psychological distress (i.e., anxiety and stress; RAND, 2010). Further, scholars suggested that the success of the repeal was dependent on organizational practice and climate (Herek & Belkin,

2006). Drawing from research regarding organizational effectiveness in integration and inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities and women, social psychologist and sociologist Herek and Belkin (2006) suggested that successful implementation of a possible repeal hinged on (a) institution-wide intolerance of harassment; (b) top-down compliance and enforcement of the LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 19 policy; (c) institutional buy-in especially among “junior ranking personnel;” and (d) belief that implementation of the policy would not lead to negative opinion of the organization and its members. Although Herek and Belkin were not I/O psychologists, their recommendations had direct implications for I/O as topics of organizational climate and organizational “buy-in” are both in the domain of workplace psychology. DADT was finally repealed later in 2010, allowing for out individuals to openly serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Since DADT’s repeal, I/O psychologists, including scholars Larry Martinez, Michelle

Hebl and Charlie Law (2012), have contributed to the field of military psychology to better understand implications for integration of gay and lesbian service members. Through study of an

Air Force sample, researchers studied officers’ attitudes following manipulation of subordinate gender and sexual identity. This study was one of the first post- DADT studies within the field.

As such, other researchers were encouraged to follow-suit and continue exploration of attitudinal impacts of the repeal. Since this article, there has been few follow-up research lending advice to psychologists working with military personnel following post-DADT (e.g., Johnson, Rosenstein,

Buhrke, & Haldeman, 2013). Although I/O psychologists have been involved in this realm of research (e.g., Martinez et al., 2012), this research has been predominately published within the field of military psychology. Nevertheless, with recent repeal of DADT, came an increased need from consultants working in the non-civilian sector to understand how to successfully integrate sexual minorities within the military.

As previously discussed, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was originally passed to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Although legal interpretation gradually loosened beyond “biological sex” to incorporate discrimination on the basis of “sex stereotyping” or gender norms and expectations (see Price LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 20

Waterhouse v. Hopkins), for decades the courts upheld the philosophy that LGBTQ persons were not included as a protected class under Title VII (see Hamner, 2000; Perkins, 2013). However, in the last decade, this stance has been challenged—both within the court and by recent EEOC interpretation. In Macy v. Holder, the plaintiff was allegedly denied a position with the Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) after disclosing being in the process of transition. As a result of Macy, the EEOC provided a revised interpretation stating that discrimination based on gender identity, change of sex, and/ or transgender status is discrimination on the “basis of sex” under Title VII (Perkins, 2013). This revised interpretation introduced the “per se because of sex” theory suggesting that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity are by nature sex-based discrimination as they are both fueled by gender stereotypes and violate Title VII (Perkins, 2013). Although there is currently no federal piece of legislation that explicitly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual and gender identity, recent change in court and EEOC interpretation strongly advise against workplace discrimination against LGBTQ applicants and employees. With the rapidly changing social and legal climate, it is becoming increasingly difficult for organizations—and

I/O psychologists, to ignore the needs and experiences of LGBTQ employees. In fact, within a recent focal article published within Industrial and Organizational Psychology, scholars Eden

King and Jose Cortina (2010) reinforce the field’s duty and obligation as they suggest that I/O psychologists and organizations are obligated to research and enforce LGBT supportive culture.

Directly in conversation with the rapidly-changing legal climate, the field continues to experience an increase in research surrounding topics involving perceived discrimination of

LGBTQ workers. Consensus within the literature has emerged to suggest that individuals are capable of making automatic, implicit judgements of sexual orientation from individual facial LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 21 features (e.g., Remedios, Chasteen, Rule, & Plaks, 2011; Rule, Ambady, & Hallett, 2009). A recent study conducted by social psychologist Rule and colleagues (2016) suggests that these results have important implications for personnel selection as subtle perceptions of sexual orientation may influence employment opportunities of gay applicants. In doing so, this study has uniquely contributed to the discrimination literature through the extension of concepts such as social identity and role congruity to perceptions of sexual minorities. For example, results of this study suggest male applicants perceived as gay were believed to be more qualified for stereotypically communal professions. Conversely, participants indicated that straight men would be more qualified for stereotypically agentic professions. Such research is consistent with the gender and leadership literature (Eagly, 1987). Further, this research builds upon the discrimination and concealable identity literature to suggest that gay male employees may be subjected to potential stereotyping and workplace discrimination even when their identity is kept private. The field can expect more research investigating potential negative effects of facial recognition for selection outcomes as recent research suggests that facial recognition technology has the potential to make similar judgements concerning sexual identity using facial images (see

Wang & Kosinski, 2018). Another practical implication for coworker solidarity has also been posed in a recent article published by I/O scholar Larry Martinez and colleagues (2017) as results suggest that confrontation of prejudice by allies can influence perceptions of the perpetrator and perhaps signal workplace intolerance of discrimination.

In 2015, a 5-4 Supreme Court decision ruled same-sex marriage as a constitutional right

(Obergefell v. Hodges). As a result, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was overruled.

Within the organizational context, spousal benefits were extended as same-sex partnerships were now legally recognized in all U.S. states (Gandara, Jackson, & Discont, 2016). As different LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 22 family structures are continuing to become more acceptable within society, I/O psychologists have suggested a need within the work-family domain to focus on LGBTQ family structures

(Allen & Eby, 2017). Preliminary research suggests that individuals belonging to LGBTQ families are not immune to societal pull regarding work-family balance (Richardson, Moyer, &

Goldberg, 2012). However, recent research conducted by I/O psychologists Katina Sawyer,

Christian Thoroughgood, and Jamie Ladge (2017) suggest that LGBT employees experience an added layer of conflict due to perceived incongruence between expectations regarding traditional familial structures and that of their own family structure. A recent study, also published within the same volume of the Journal of Vocational Behavior, conducted by researchers Hennekam and Ladge (2017) investigated the unique workplace experiences of lesbian couples who have recently become parents and suggests that when compared to birth mothers, non-birth mothers face unique challenges, and importantly, that these challenges have the potential to negatively influence their return to the workplace. Given the experienced workplace stressors and stigma of sexual minorities and gender non-conforming employees, researchers suggest that LGBTQ work-family research has implications for organizational practices as results provide better understanding of the intricacies surrounding family-oriented policy such as parental leave (Agars

& French 2016; Allen & Eby, 2016). For example, Sawyer and colleagues (2017) suggest that organizations be mindful of the inclusivity of their policies in order to encourage diverse definitions of “family.”

Recent research in the LGBTQ work family literature has also investigated potential implications of disclosure for work-family and well-being outcomes. Results from a recent study conducted by I/O scholars Williamson, and colleagues (2017) suggest that inability to disclose within one’s organization was associated with spillover effects to an individual’s partner. LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 23

However, employee disclosure with coworkers and supervisors were positively related to family satisfaction. Such discussion has also been brought to Division 14’s annual research conference

(e.g., Locklear, Williamson, & Clark, 2017; Sawyer, Thoroughgood, & Russell, 2017).

Unlike previous eras, research has recently emerged concerning LGBTQ leadership issues due to recent suggestion within the leadership literature to consider leadership dynamics and challenges specific to minority groups, including sexual minorities (Eagly & Chin, 2010;

Fassinger, Shullman, & Stevenson, 2010). Recent scholarship suggests there may be negative perceptions of gay and lesbian leaders due to role incongruence (Fassinger et al., 2010; Martinez et al., 2006). Results of a recent study conducted by I/O scholars Salter and Liberman (2016) suggest that when compared to leaders of other gender and sexual identities, gay male leaders were rated as the most dissimilar from the “prototypical” leader. Consistent with the gender role literature, majority of stereotypes of LGB leaders were associated with prominent gender stereotypes within the literature. However, additional stereotypes concerning sexual orientation were also found. Additionally, recent research investigating the unique challenges of LGBTQ leaders has implication for performance management, selection, and organizational support

(Salter & Liberman, 2016).

There has been recent debate concerning inclusion of gender dysphoria within the DSM.

The DSM-5 workgroup on Gender Identity Disorder (GID) decided to replace GID with gender dysphoria as its own category (GD: APA, 2013; Beek, Cohen-Kettenis, & Kreukels. 2016;

Drescher, 2015). Although GD allows for individuals to seek resources for transition, as determined based on diagnosis, this diagnosis does not add any additional protection. For example, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990; ADAAA, 2008), GD is not recognized as a disability. Inclusion of GD also has implications for selection as President LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 24

Trump recently announced plans to implement a transgender military ban which proposes GD diagnosis be used to determine eligibility of service members.

In July of 2017, President Trump first announced plans to implement a transgender military ban via social media. The ban aims to prohibit individuals who have been diagnosed with GD from serving in the military with limited exceptions (Vogue & Cohen, 2019). In sum, this policy would prohibit transgender persons requiring reassignment or hormonal treatment from actively serving. On January 22, 2019 this ban was brought to the United States Supreme

Court. A 5-4 split decision allowed for the proposed ban to move forward for implementation

(Vogue & Cohen, 2019). This proposed ban has major implications for the field. As with the military ban during the 1940s, this ban draws from psychiatric diagnosis. Further, the rationale used for the ban mirrors that of the DOD’s rationale for the LGB military ban many years prior—that allowance of transgender individuals in the military would prove “incompatible” to the military’s mission (Vogue & Cohen, 2019; Herek, 1993). Once again, we can expect psychologists to weigh-in on the ban and provide empirical evidence concerning integration of non-gender conforming and transgender service members. Further, this ban will have implications for DSM revision—the assigned GD work group will have to determine whether this new ban will carry increased stigma surrounding transgender individuals diagnosed with

GD.

As discussed earlier, following Macy, the EEOC provided revised interpretation which suggested that Title VII prohibited workplace discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

Perhaps in tandem, the field has experienced a rise in the empirical study of workplace experiences of transgender employees including the topics of potential antecedents (e.g., organizational support; Law et al., 2011) and consequences of disclosure (e.g., job satisfaction LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 25 and organizational commitment; Law et al., 2011), internal factors influencing perceptions of discrimination and other work related outcomes (Thoroughgood, Sawyer, & Webster, 2017), as well as potential effects of organizational policy and support concerning transition on outcomes, such as job attitudes (Martinez et al., 2017). Recently, the Journal of Applied Psychology published its first article titled, The Importance of Being “Me”: The Relation Between Authentic

Identity Expression and Transgender Employees’ Work-Related Attitudes and Experiences conducted by I/O psychologists Lary Martinez, Katina Sawyer, Enrica Ruggs, and Nicholas

Smith. Building upon theories of authenticity, researchers investigated whether action and relational authenticity mediate the relationship between extent to transition and three job-related outcomes: job satisfaction, perceived P-O fit, and perceived discrimination (Martinez et al.,

2017). Results of a series of studies suggested that while action authenticity mediated the relationship between extent to transition and job satisfaction, relational authenticity mediated the relationship between extent to transition and all three outcomes studied. This article was timely as it provided organizations with implications concerning how to successfully support smooth transition of transgender employees including implication for diversity and inclusion training and initiative. Importantly, this publication signaled the importance of transgender worker-focused research within the I/O community.

The SIOP LGBT committee—changing from ad-hoc to permanent in 2014—has continued to play an important role in the field of I/O and LGBTQ issues. Primarily this came in the role of encouraging exploration of new research and discussion around emerging issues surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity. Compared to other research areas in I/O, there have been fewer publications of LGBT centered research within top journals of the field.

This likely for a number or reasons, such as the difficulty to acquire samples in this area as well LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 26 as the topic being newer than many others. To address this gap within the literature, the committee promoted more research around this topic by consistently hosting and promoting presentations at the annual SIOP conference. During this time period, society’s understanding of

LGBTQ issues grew much deeper, and it was at the conference that many newer and cutting- edge topics within the field of LGBTQ workplace experiences were discussed (e.g., Dray &

Sabat, 2018; Huffman, 2018). The SIOP LGBT committee also worked with SIOP leadership in

2012 to create an official policy statement endorsing the Employment Nondiscrimination Act

(ENDA) and condemning LGBT workplace discrimination (SIOP, 2012). The leadership of

SIOP endorsing this statement is another way in which the SIOP LGBT committee helped show all that I/O as a field supports LGBTQ individuals.

Conclusion: Past, Present, Future

Here we have reviewed four distinct historical eras—each can be categorized by different trends in I/O focused research (see Table 1). Scientific study of LGBTQ employees can be traced back to immediately following the Stonewall Riots and Gay Liberation Movement in the late twentieth century. As societal stigma surrounding LGBTQ identities continues to be challenged, organizations are encouraged to draw from the I/O and organizational behavior literature to better understand how to attract, select, and retain high-performing LGBTQ individuals. To meet this growing demand, the field has experienced an increase in research surrounding identity disclosure; employment discrimination; and effects of diversity-related organizational policy and support on well-being, organizational commitment, and other related outcomes. Such research has been impactful as the literature suggests a need for inclusive workplace environments for identity disclosure, reduced perceived interpersonal discrimination and employee well-being. LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 27

During this time, Organizations experienced increased pressure to successfully integrate

LGBTQ employees from legal institutions to successfully integrate LGBTQ employees. This legal pressure has come in the form of the repeal of DADT, executive orders (e.g., Executive

Order 12968; Gates & Sanders), and changes in court and EEOC interpretation surrounding Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Along with Washington D.C, there are currently twenty-one states that have implemented laws prohibiting discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity (Human Rights Campaign, 2019). With recent changes in the legal climate concerning LGBTQ worker rights, there has been an increased need from organizations to better understand underlying mechanisms and antecedents of workplace discrimination against LGBTQ targets as well as how discrimination of LGBTQ applicants may be manifested in the employment context. As a result, I/O research in the domain of employment discrimination has increased within the twenty-first century.

Through historical review, researchers and practitioners in the field can discuss implications for future research. To date, majority of previous research in I/O studying LGBTQ worker experiences has been in the realm of organizational psychology and has largely focused on experiences involved in disclosure of identity and gender transition with regard to well-being

(Martinez et al., 2017; Willamson et al., 2017; Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell 2007), and the antecedents of perceived discrimination in the workplace (Ragins and Cornwell, 2011). As the legal climate surrounding LGBTQ worker rights continues to rapidly change, future research is needed to explore implications for personnel selection. As previous research suggests (e.g., Hebl et al., 2002; Rule et al., 2016), minimal information concerning sexual identity may have negative implications for the selection process. These judgements are often automatic and unintentional by the rater and guided by stereotypes of the “prototypical” heteronormative LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 28 standard (Rule et al., 2016; Salter & Liberman). Future research is needed to investigate the effects of these automatic judgements on hiring decisions and performance review (Rule et al.,

2016). Extension of the LGBTQ employment discrimination literature will provide guidance for organizations concerning how to limit potential for disparate treatment. Standardized selection tools should also be scrutinized in future research to investigate potential for adverse impact.

This is especially pertinent given the rise in literature suggesting that facial recognition technology has the potential to make judgements of sexual identity (Wang & Kosinki, 2018).

` Through historical review, we have summarized the history of I/O’s interface with

LGBTQ workplace rights and experiences. Overall, scientific discovery has led to an increased understanding of the unique workplace challenges and experiences of members of the LGBTQ community. With the new transgender military ban on the near-horizon, we encourage psychologists to consider its implication for LGBTQ worker-oriented research. Therefore, we not only recommend this review be a tool for the field to consider implications for future research but urge the field to look back on psychology’s relationship with prior policy, legislation, and political climate. LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 29

Era Major Historical Influences Major Trends in Psychological Research

Silent Era (Pre-1970s) “Homosexuality” included in the DSM as Psychiatric norms surrounding diagnosis pathology; public stigma and oppressive federal translated to exclusion of gay draftees in WWII laws prevented individuals from coming out pre-screening Civil Rights Movement and adoption of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Post Gay Liberation (1970s-1990) Increase in protest as a result of the Stonewall Beginnings of research involving perceived Riots and Gay Liberation Movement; precursor discrimination of LGB persons (e.g., Levitt & to “Gender Identity Disorder” included in the Klassen, 1974); and the processes involved in DSM Disclosure at work (e.g., Schneider, 1986); research primarily conducted by researchers outside of I/O

Age of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (1990s- Psychologists and APA weigh-in on debate Translated to a “boom” in LGBTQ worker- 2009) surrounding DADT (Herek, 1993); focused research published in influential implementation of Executive Orders 12968 and journals in I/O (e.g., Day & Shoenrade, 1997); 13087; emergence of state anti-discrimination Division 14 of the APA (SIOP) forms the LGBT laws and company policies; inclusion of ad-hoc committee. transgender rights in the LGBT movement LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 30

Present (2010-Present) Repeal of DADT; change in EEOC interpretation Implications for DOMA on work family of Title VII, Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage; research (e.g., Sawyer et al., 2017); broader recent announcement for plans of military ban on range of LGBTQ topics were studied by I/Os transgender individuals than previously; first article exploring transgender workplace experiences published in Journal of Applied Psychology (Martinez et al., 2017)

LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 31

References

Agars, Mark D., and Kimberly A. French (2016) Considering underrepresented populations in

work-family research. The Oxford handbook of work and family: New York: Oxford

University Press, 362-375.

Allen T.D., & Eby L.T. (eds) (2016) Advancing work–family research and practice. In: The

Oxford Handbook of Work and Family. New York: Oxford University Press, 477–486.

American Psychiatric Association (1952). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

(5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Armstrong, E. A. (2002). Forging gay identities: Organizing sexuality in San Francisco, 1950-

1994. University of Chicago Press.

Barclay, J. M., & Scott, L. J. (2006). Transsexuals and workplace diversity: A case of “change”

management. Personnel Review, 35, 487-502.

Beek, T. F., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., & Kreukels, B. P. (2016). Gender incongruence/gender

dysphoria and its classification history. International Review of Psychiatry, 28, 5-12.

Bell, A. P., & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities : a study of diversity among men and

women. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978.

Berube, A. (1990). Coming out under fire: The history of gay men and women in World War II.

New York: Free Press.

Budge, S. L., Tebbe, E. N., & Howard, K. A. S. (2010). The work experiences of

transgender individuals: Negotiating the transition and career decision-making

processes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 377−393. LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 32

Burks, D. J. (2011). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual victimization in the military: An unintended

consequence of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? American Psychologist, 66, 604–613.

Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level

examination. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 17−28.

Button, S. B. (2004). Identity management strategies utilized by lesbian and gay employees: A

quantitative investigation. Group & Organization Management, 29, 470−494.

Button, S.B., & Welle, B. (2004).Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender visability within SIOP:

Fostering research advances and a culture of inclusion. The Industrial-Organizational

Psychologist, 41, 121-204.

Carbado, D. W., & Weise, D. (2003). The Civil Rights Identity of Bayard Rustin. Texas Law

Review, 5, 1133-1195.

Chao, G. T. (2003). Secretary’s report. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 41, 183–184.

Cleary, A. T. (1968). Test bias: Prediction of grades of Negro and white students in integrated

colleges. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 115–124.

Colella, A. J., McKay, P. F., Daniels, S. R., & Signal, S. M. (2012). Employment

discrimination. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.). Oxford handbook of organizational

psychology (only read 1034-1043, 1063-1078). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and

experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414–446.

Croteau, J. M. (1996). Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people:

An integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48,

195-209. LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 33

Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (1997). Staying in the closet versus coming out: Relationships

between communication about sexual orientation and work attitudes. Personnel

Psychology, 50, 147–163.

Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (2000). The relationship among reported disclosure of sexual

orientation, anti-discrimination policies, top management support and work attitudes of

gay and lesbian employees. Personnel Review, 29, 346−363.

D'Emilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities: The making of a homosexual minority

in the United States, 1940-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Devor, A. H., & Matte, N. (2004). ONE Inc. and Reed Erickson: The uneasy collaboration of gay

and trans activism, 1964-2003. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 10, 179-209.

Dietert, M., & Dentice, D. (2009). Gender identity issues and workplace discrimination: The

transgender experience. Journal of Workplace Rights, 14, 121−140.

Dray, K. K. & Sabat, I. E. (co-chairs) (2018, April). Workplace allies: Exploring the process of

becoming an effective and vocal ally. Symposium presented at the Society for Industrial

and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.

Drescher, J. (2010). Queer diagnoses: parallels and contrasts in the history of homosexuality,

gender variance, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Archives of Sexual Behavior,

39, 427-460.

Drescher, J. (2015). Queer diagnoses revisited: The past and future of homosexuality and gender

diagnoses in DSM and ICD. International Review of Psychiatry, 27(5), 386-395.

Driscoll, J. M., Kelley, F. A., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Lesbian identity and disclosure in the

workplace: Relation to occupational stress and satisfaction. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 48, 229 –242. LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 34

Eagly, A. (1987). Sex difference in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American

Psychologist, 65(3), 216–224.

Faderman, L. (1991). Odd girls and twilight lovers: A history of lesbian life in twentieth-century

America. New York: Columbia University Press.

Fassinger, R. E., Shullman, S. L., & Stevenson, M. R. (2010). Toward an affirmative lesbian,

gay, bisexual, and transgender leadership paradigm. American Psychologist, 65, 201–

215.

Follmer, K. B., Jones, K. S. (2018). Mental illness in the workplace: An interdisciplinary review

and organizational research agenda. Journal of Management, 44, 325-351.

Gagne, P., Tewksbury, R., & McGaughey, D. (1997). Coming out and crossing over: Identity

formation and proclamation in a transgender community. Gender and Society, 11,

478−508.

Gandara, D. A., Jackson, M. L., & Discont, S. (2017). Concerns for LGBT workers after the

2016 presidential election and what I-O professionals can do about It. The Industrial-

Organizational Psychologist, 54, 85–89.

Gates, T. G., & Saunders, M. C. (2016). Executive orders for human rights: The case of Obama’s

LGBT nondiscrimination order. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 16,

24-36.

Gittings, B. (2008). Show and tell. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, 12, 289–294.

Graham, M. A. (1986). Out of the closet and into the courtroom. Employment Relations Today,

13, 167-173. LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 35

Green, J. (2004). Becoming a visible man. Vanderbilt University Press.

Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The Disclosure Dilemma for Gay Men and Lesbians:

“Coming Out” at Work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1191–1199.

Hall, M. (1986). The lesbian corporate experience. Journal of Homosexuality, 12, 59–75.

Hamner v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 224 F.3d 701, 70307 (7th Cir. 2000)

Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal

discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and

social psychology bulletin, 28, 815-825.

Hebl, M.R., & King, E.B. (2007, February). LGBT Committee Report. Retrieved from

http://www.siop.org/reportsandminutes/CommitteeReports/feb07/lgbt.aspx

Hennekam, S. A., & Ladge, J. J. (2017). When lesbians become mothers: Identity validation and

the role of diversity climate. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103, 40-55.

Herek, G. M. (1993). Sexual orientation and military service: A social science perspective.

American Psychologist, 48, 538–549.

Herek, G. M., & Belkin, A. (2006). Sexual Orientation and Military Service: Prospects for

Organizational and Individual Change in the United States. In T. W. Britt, A. B. Adler, &

C. A. Castro (Eds.), Military Culture. Military life: The psychology of serving in peace

and combat: Military culture (pp. 119-142). Westport, CT: Praeger Security

International.

Hooker, E. A. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective

Techniques, 21, 18–31. LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 36

Huffman, A. H., (chair) (2018, April). Transgender employee experiences: Understanding the

issues to create solutions. Symposium presented at the Society for Industrial and

Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.

Human Rights Campaign. (2019, January 28). State Maps of Laws & Policies. Retrieved from

https://www.hrc.org/state-maps/employment

Irwin, J. (2002). Discrimination against gay men, lesbians, and transgender people working in

education. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 14, 65−77.

Johnson, W.B., Rosenstein, J.E., Buhrke, R.A., Halderman, D.C. (2015). After “Don’t ask Don’t

tell”: Competent care of lesbian, gay, and bisexual military personnel during the DoD

policy transition. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 46, 107-115.

Kameny, F. (2009). How it all started. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 13, 76–81.

King, E. B., & Cortina, J. M. (2010). The social and economic imperative of lesbian, gay,

bisexual, and transgendered supportive organizational policies. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 3, 69-78.

Koppes, L. L., & Pickren, W. (2007). Industrial and Organizational Psychology: An Evolving

Science and Practice. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and

organizational psychology. (pp. 3–35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Publishers.

Krafft-Ebing, R. (1965). Psychopathia sexualis (Trans., H. Wedeck). New York: Putnam.

(Original work published 1886).

Kravitz, D. A. (2008). The diversity-validity dilemma: Beyond selection: The role of affirmative

action. Personnel Psychology, 61, 173-193. LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 37

Kuhn, B. (2011). Gay Power!: The Stonewall Riots and the Gay Rights Movement, 1969.

Twenty-First Century Books.

Law, C. L., Martinez, L. R., Ruggs, E. N., Hebl, M. R., & Akers, E. (2011). Trans-parency in the

workplace: How the experiences of transsexual employees can be improved. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 79, 710-723.

Levine, M. P. (1979). Employment discrimination against gay men. International review of

modern sociology, 9, 151–163.

Levine, M. P., & Leonard, R. (1984). Discrimination against lesbians in the work force. Journal

of Women in Culture and Society, 9, 700–710.

Levitt, E. E., & Klassen Jr., A. D. (1974). Public Attitudes toward Homosexuality:Part of the

1970 National Survey by the Institute for Sex Research. Journal of Homosexuality, 1, 29–

44.

Lewis, G.B. (2001) Barriers to security clearances for gay men and lesbians: fear of blackmail or

fear of homosexuals? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 539–

558.

Locklear, L.R., Williamson, R.L., & Clark, M.A (2017, April). Work-family conflict in same-sex

couples. Poster session presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational

Psychology Annual Conference, Orlando, FL.

Macy v. Holder, 2012 W.L. 1435995 (2012).

Martinez, L. R., Hebl, M. R., & Law, C. L. (2012). How sexuality information impacts attitudes

and behaviors toward gay service members. Military Psychology, 24, 461-472. LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 38

Martinez, L. R., Hebl, M. R., Smith, N. A., & Sabat, I. E. (2017). Standing up and speaking out

against prejudice toward gay men in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103,

71-85.

Martinez, L.R., Sasso, T., Salter, N.P. (2014). From the LGBT ad-hoc committee: Open

invitation to allies. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 51, 176–181.

Martinez, L. R., Sawyer, K. B., Thoroughgood, C. N., Ruggs, E. N., & Smith, N. A. (2017). The

importance of being “me”: The relation between authentic identity expression and

transgender employees’ work-related attitudes and experiences. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 102, 215-226.

Neely Martinez M. (1993), Recognizing sexual orientation is fair and not costly, HRMagazine,

38, 66-72.

Obergell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 1039, 576 U.S., 190 L. Ed. 2d 908 (2015).

Perkins, C. (2013). Sex and Sexual Orientation: Title VII After Macy v. Holder. Admin. L. Rev.,

65, 427-448.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S. Ct. 1775, 104 L. Ed. 2d 268 (1989).

Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of

perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. The Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86, 1244−1261.

Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and

disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1103–1118.

RAND National Defense Research Institute. (2010). Sexual orientation and U.S. military

personnel policy: An update of RAND’s 1993 study (Report No. MG-1056-OSD).

Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/ pubs/monographs/MG1056.html LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 39

Remedios, J. D., Chasteen, A. L., Rule, N. O., & Plaks, J. E. (2011). Impressions at the

intersection of ambiguous and obvious social categories: Does gay black likable?

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1312–1315.

Richardson, H. B., Moyer, A. M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2012). " You try to be superman and you

don't have to be": gay adoptive fathers' challenges and tensions in balancing work and

family. Fathering, 10, 314-337.

Rule, N. O., Ambady, N., & Hallett, K. C. (2009). Female sexual orientation is perceived

accurately, rapidly, and automatically from the face and its features. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1245– 1251

Rule, N. O., Bjornsdottir, R. T., Tskhay, K. O., & Ambady, N. (2016). Subtle perceptions of

male sexual orientation influence occupational opportunities. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 101, 1687-1704.

Saghir, M. T., & Robins, E. (1973). Male and female homosexuality; a comprehensive

investigation. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins [1973].

Salter, N. P., & Liberman, B. (2016). The role of sexual orientation and gender on leadership

perceptions. In T. Köllen (Ed.) Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in

Organizations: Global Perspectives on LGBT Workforce Diversity (pp. 429 – 449). New

York: Springer.

Sawyer, K.B., Thai, J.L., Martinez, L.R., Smith, N. A. (2016). LGBT issues in research and

practice. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist,54.

http://www.siop.org/tip/july16/lgbt.aspx LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 40

Sawyer, K. B., Thoroughgood, C.N., & Ladge, J. (2017). Invisible families, invisible conflicts:

Examining the added layer of work-family conflict for employees with LGB families.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103, 23-39.

Sawyer, K.B., Thoroughgood, C.N., & Russell, C.J. (2017, April). A new measure of work

family conflict in same-sex couples. In C.N. Thoroughgood, & S.T. Discont (co-chairs),

New approaches in LGBT research in I-O psychology. Symposium conducted at Society

for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, Orlando, FL.

Schneider, B. E. (1986). Coming out at work: Bridging the private/public gap. Work and

Occupations, 13, 463–487.

Schilt, K. (2006). Just one of the guys? How transmen make gender visible at work. Gender &

Society, 20, 465−490.

Schilt, K., & Connell, C. (2007). Do workplace gender transitions make gender trouble?

Gender, Work & Organization, 14, 596−618.

Seal K, (1991). Sexual orientation becomes workplace issue for the 1900s. Hotel & Motel

Management, 206, 2-29.

Silverstein, C. (2009). The implications of removing homosexuality from the DSM as a mental

disorder [Letter to the editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 161–163.

Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology (2012). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and

Transgender Employment Non-Discrimination Policy. Retrieved

from http://www.siop.org/reportsandminutes/LGBTPolicyStatement.pdf LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 41

Stone, A. L. (2009). More than adding a T: American lesbian and gay activists' attitudes towards

transgender inclusion. Sexualities, 12, 334-354.

Thoroughgood, C.N., Sawyer, K.B., & Webster, J.R. (2017). What lies beneath: How paranoid

cognition explains the relations between transgender employees’ perceptions of

discrimination at work and their job attitudes and wellbeing. Journal of Vocational

Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.009

Vinchur, A. J., & Koppes, L. L. (2007). Early Contributors to the Science and Practice of

Industrial Psychology. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and

organizational psychology. (pp. 37–58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Publishers.

Vogue, A. D., & Cohen, Z. (2019, January 22). Supreme Court allows transgender military ban

to go into effect. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/22/politics/scotus-

transgender-ban/index.html

Williamson, R. L., Beiler-May, A., Locklear, L. R., & Clark, M. A. (2017). Bringing home what

I′m hiding at work: The impact of sexual orientation disclosure at work for same-sex

couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103, 7-22.

Weinberg, M. S., & Williams, C. J. (1974). Male homosexuals : their problems and adaptations.

New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.

Welle, B., & Button, S. B. (2004). Workplace experiences of lesbian and gay employees: A

review of current research. International Review of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, 19, 139 –170.

Woods, J. D. (with Lucas, J. H.). (1993). The Corporate Closet: The Professional Lives of Gay

Men in America. New York: The Free Press. LGBTQ WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES 42

Woods, S. E., & Harbeck, K. M. (1992). Living in two worlds: The identity management

strategies used by lesbian physical educators. In K. M. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the

classroom closet (pp. 141–166). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.

Zickar, M. J., & Gibby, R. E. (2007). Four Persistent Themes Throughout the History of I-O

Psychology in the United States. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectives in

industrial and organizational psychology. (pp. 61–80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates Publishers.