1. Sexual Orientation and Workplace Discrimination Christina Curley Colorado State University

2. Overview Previous literature reports income differentials for gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals Updated data shows: 1. Income is not significantly different for those who self-identify as LGB compared with heterosexuals 2. An income gap exists for males who identify as straight, but have had one or more same-sex partner

3. Background Types of discrimination vary – Lower wages – Job loss/ denied a position – Harassment Literature on income differentials – Use of General Social Survey Gay/Bisexual males earn 11-27% less Results for females vary – Use of Census data Marriage premium accounts for portion of wage gap

4. Data The General Social Survey 2008-2012 Before 2008: – Survey only asks respondents to report their sexual history (sex of sex partners) After 2008: – Survey asks for respondents sexual orientation – Keeps question about sexual history Other variables: – Age, education, # of children, race, marital status, region, unemployment status, etc.

5. Data Manipulations Income – Interval nature – Remedies: Substitute median of income interval as dependent variable Use interval regression Sexual orientation – indicators for sexual orientation 1. self-identification – respondent replies with G/L, bisexual, or heterosexual 2. Number of same sex partners – Categorize as LGB if one or more same sex partners, regardless of reported orientation 3. Inconsistency – Categorize as “questioning” if respondent has had a same sex partner, but reports being straight/heterosexual

6. Sexual Orientation/History Stats Self-identified gay, lesbian, bisexual – 4.3% of females – 3.2% of males At least one same sex partner – 9.4% of females – 8.8% of males At least one same sex partner and identify as straight/heterosexual – 5.5% of females – 6.1% of males

7. Some Summary Stats Unemployment rates – Men Heterosexual: 5.1% Gay/Bisexual: 8.9% – Women Heterosexual: 4.4% Lesbian/Bisexual: 7.8% Other variables – Marriage rates much lower for LGB – Education levels similar across groups

8. Other Types of Discrimination 2008 & 2012 Report having been harassed at work due to sexual orientation – 32.4% of L/B women – 31.3% of G/B men Report having been denied or fired from a job due to sexual orientation – 11% of L/B women – 25% of G/B men

9. Results Self-identification as LGB – No significant impact on income One or more same sex partners – Not significant for females – Significant for males using OLS at 10% level 13.7% lower income – Not significant using interval regression “Questioning” – Not significant for females – For males, negative impact on income OLS: 22.3% lower income Interval regression: 21.3% lower income

10. Thoughts Self-identification – Not a significant income gap – Is it gone then? Interval nature Potential for bias

11. Differences in Sexual History and Sexual Orientation Why aren’t the two in agreement? – Sexual orientation is not always clear – Previous literature assumes history = orientation Why would a straight male with a previous male partner have a lower income? – Self esteem? – Occupation/choices – Other factors?

12. Where to now? Concern that a specific group has an income differential Further research necessary to uncover the reason Not exactly discrimination… Possibly underlying social issues