Can Diversity Training Discriminate? Backlash to Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Diversity Initiatives

  • David M. KaplanEmail author
Original Paper

A growing number of companies are including lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) issues as part of their diversity initiatives and training. A potential problem with including LGB issues is the backlash from some employees who believe that such orientations are wrong. Further, given existing civil rights legislation it is not unreasonable for these employees to feel that their religious beliefs should be accommodated. This requires the organization to carefully balance the rights of religious objectors to such training while providing adequate support for LGB employees. This paper analyzes three cases where employees felt they were discriminated against because of their belief systems. In addition to identifying the key factors that led to the feelings of discrimination, the paper offers suggestions to prevent future occurrences.

diversity training religious accommodation gay lesbian 


  1. Altman v. Minnesota Department of Corrections (1999). 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14897.Google Scholar
  2. Altman v. Minnesota Department of Corrections (2001). 251 F.3d 1199.Google Scholar
  3. Bendick, M., Egan, M. L., & Lofhjelm, S. M. (2001). Workforce diversity training: From anti-discrimination compliance to organizational development. Human Resource Planning, 24, 10–25.Google Scholar
  4. Buonanno v. AT&T Broadband, LLC, 313 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (2004).Google Scholar
  5. 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, 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, M. M. (2004). Religion vs. sexual orientation. HRMagazine, 49(8), 54–59.Google Scholar
  7. Cox, T. (1994). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research, & Practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  8. Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al., 539 U.S. 244 (2003).Google Scholar
  9. Grutter v. Bollinger et al., 539 U.S. 982 (2003).Google Scholar
  10. Henlre, C. A., & Hogler, R. (2004). The duty of accommodation and the workplace religious freedom act of 2003: From bad policy to worse law. Labor Law Journal, 55, 153–165.Google Scholar
  11. Human Rights Campaign (2003). The state of the workplace for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered Americans. Washington, DC: Human Rights Campaign.Google Scholar
  12. Mello, J. A. (1996). The strategic management of workplace diversity initiatives: Public sector implications. International Journal of Public Administration, 19, 425–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Company (2004). 358 F.3d 599.Google Scholar
  14. Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of Management Executive, 11, 21–31.Google Scholar
  15. Rynes, S., & Rosen, B. (1994). What makes diversity programs work. HRMagazine, 39, 67–73.Google Scholar
  16. Von Bergen, C. W., Soper, B., & Foster, T. (2002). Unintended negative effects of diversity management. Public Personnel Management, 31, 239–252.Google Scholar
  17. Walsh, D. J. (2004). Employment Law for Human Resource Practice. United States: Thomson South-Western.Google Scholar
  18. Williams v. Kaiser Permanente Div. of Research, No. C-99-4230 MJJ (2000).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saint Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations