Impact of Same-Sex Harassment and Gender-Role Stereotypes on Title VII Protection for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Employees


When victimized in the workplace, gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) employees often find themselves without recourse as Title VII does not recognize sexual orientation to be a protected class. We suggest that recent court decisions that have expanded Title VII to protect individuals from discrimination based upon violations of gender norms can be used to provide a basis for protection of GLB individuals under this statute. Using a review of the role of gender norms in the workplace as well as an analysis of recent court decisions and the Congressional debates on the Federal Marriage Amendment as well as the wording of the Defense of Marriage Act [Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Pub. L. 104-199, Stat. 2419 (September 21, 1996)], this paper provides the theoretical background and conceptual argument (but does not attempt to make the legal argument) to suggest that same-sex harassment and discrimination are considered violations of societal gender norms and should therefore be protected under the expanded coverage of Title VII.


same-sex harassment gender-role stereotypes glb employees 


  1. 108th Congress. (2004a). 108th Congress Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate. A Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Preserve Traditional Marriage, 23 March 2004 pdf&directory=/disk5/wais/data/108_senate_hearings.Google Scholar
  2. 108th Congress. (2004b). 108th Congress Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives. Legal Threats to Traditional Marriage: Implications for Public Policy, 22 April 2004 IPaddress= Scholar
  3. 108th Congress. (2004c). 108th Congress Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives. Federal Marriage Amendment (The Musgrave Amendment), 13 May 2004 filename=93656.pdf&directory=/disk5/wais/data/108_house_hearings.Google Scholar
  4. ‘Babies R Us’ to Pay $205,000, Implement Training Due to Same-Sex Harassment of Male Employee, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( Scholar
  5. Bayer, R. (1981). Homosexual and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. Basic Books. New York, NY.Google Scholar
  6. Besen, W. R. (2003). Anything But Straight. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boldry, J., Wood, W., & Kashy, D. A. (2001). Gender stereotypes and the evaluation of men and women in military training. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 689–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyce, L. A., & Herd, A. M. (2003). The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite military leadership characteristics. Sex Roles, 49, 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brewer, M. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal group situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28(2), 59–78.Google Scholar
  11. Cames, I., Vinnicombe, S., & Singh, V. (2001). Profiles of “successful managers” held by male and female banking managers across Europe. Women in Management Review, 16, 108–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Pub. L. 104-199, Stat. 2419 (September 21, 1996).Google Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003a). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003b). Finding gender advantage and disadvantage: Systematic research integration is the solution. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 851–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. EEOC v. Babies R Us, Inc. [Case No. 02-CV-989(WGB)], U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (2005).Google Scholar
  18. English, H. (2003). Gender on Trial: Sexual Stereotypes and Work/Life Balance in the Legal Workplace. New York: ALM Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Frable, D. E. S. (1989). Sex-typing and gender ideology: Two facts of the individual's gender psychology that go together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 NE2d 941 (2003).Google Scholar
  21. Gutman, A. (1993). EEO Law and Personnel Practices. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jenkin, N., & Vroegh, K. (1969). Contemporary concepts of masculinity and femininity. Psychological Reports, 25, 679–697.Google Scholar
  24. Komarovsky, M. (1946). Cultural contradictions and sex roles. American Sociological Review, 52, 184–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. LaDay v. Catalyst Technology Inc., 302 F.3d 474 (5th Cir. 2002).Google Scholar
  26. Lane, N., & Crane, A. (2002). Revisiting gender role stereotyping in the sales profession. Journal of Business Ethics, 40, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lane, N., & Piercy, N. F. (2003). The ethics of discrimination: Organizational mindsets and female employment disadvantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).Google Scholar
  29. Magezis, J. (1996). Women's Studies. Chicago, IL: NTC Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  30. Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).Google Scholar
  31. MGM Grand Hotel v. Rene, No. 02-970 (March, 2003).Google Scholar
  32. Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises Inc., 264 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001).Google Scholar
  33. Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971).Google Scholar
  34. Powell, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., & Parent, J. D. (2002). Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management, 28, 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).Google Scholar
  36. Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosenfeld, P. R., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression Management in Organizations: Theory, Measurement, and Practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women's progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sczesny, S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the Think-Manager-Think-Male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steenson, T. D. (2002). Courts increase risk employers face from same-sex harassment claims. Employment, Labor and Benefits, Holland and Knight LLP, 12(5). asp? ID=335 & Article= 1875.Google Scholar
  41. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel, S., & Austin, W. G. (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 7–24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Valian, V. (1998). Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Vecchio, R. P. (2002). Leadership and gender advantage. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 643–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vecchio, R. P. (2003). In search of gender advantage. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 835–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vinnicombe, S., & Singh, V. (2002). Sex role stereotyping and requisites of successful top managers. Women in Management Review, 17, 120–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wallin, P. (1950). Cultural contradictions and sex roles: A repeat study. American Sociological Review, 15(2), 288–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Willingham v. Macon Telegraph Publishing Co. (CA5 1975), 507 F.2d 1084 (1975).Google Scholar
  48. Wissert, D. M., & Herbster, J. L. (2003). How do you define ‘sex’ in the same-sex harassment context? New Jersey Law Journal, Vol. CLXXI - No. 13-Index 1104.Google Scholar
  49. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed. Delhi: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  50. Zachary, M. K. (2004). Gender-based stereotyping—Law and reality. Supervision, 65(8), 22–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lally School of Management and TechnologyRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA
  2. 2.Lally School of Management and TechnologyRensselaer Polytechnic Institute110 8th Street, TroyUSA

Personalised recommendations