Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Arkansas

Executive Summary

More than 4% of the American workforce identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT). Approximately 47,000 of these workers live in Arkansas. Arkansas does not have a statewide law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in both public and private sector employment.

This report summarizes recent evidence of sexual orientation and gender identity employment discrimination, explains the limited current protections from sexual orientation and gender identity employment discrimination in Arkansas, and estimates the administrative impact of passing a law prohibiting employment discrimination based on these characteristics in the state.

Key Findings

• In total there are over 80,000 LGBT adults in Arkansas, including over 47,000 who are part of Arkansas’s workforce.1
• Recent survey data from Arkansas indicate discrimination and negative attitudes toward LGBT people in the workplace. In response to a 2014 survey of nearly 1,000 LGBT people from Arkansas, 25% of respondents reported experiencing employment discrimination, and 37%reported experiencing harassment at work. Additionally, a 2013 survey of faculty, staff, and students at the University of Arkansas-Little Rock found that 16% of faculty and 19% of staff said that working with a transgender colleague would make them somewhat or very uncomfortable, and 4% of faculty and 5% of staff said that working with a gay or lesbian colleague would make them somewhat or very uncomfortable.
• Recent national surveys have found similar patterns of discrimination against LGBT workers across the country. Most recently, a 2013 Pew Research Center survey found that 21% of LGBT respondents had been treated unfairly by an employer in hiring, pay, or promotions.
• When transgender people are surveyed separately, they report similar or higher levels of discrimination. For example, as recently as 2010, 78% of respondents to the largest survey of transgender people to date reported having experienced harassment or mistreatment at work, and 47% reported having been discriminated against in hiring, promotion, or job retention because of their gender identity.
• Disparities in wages are another way that discrimination has traditionally been measured. Census data show that in Arkansas, the median income of men in same-sex couples is 24% lower than men in different-sex marriages.
• One locality in Arkansas, Fayetteville, had an ordinance prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public and private sector employment; however, it was repealed in December 2014.
• Private companies may adopt internal non-discrimination policies to improve recruitment and retention of talented employees, to increase employee productivity and customer satisfaction, or to attract a larger customer base. Five of the six Fortune 500 companies based in Arkansas have policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, and three of those companies also prohibit discrimination based on gender identity.
• Public opinion in Arkansas supports the passage of a statewide law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. A 2013 poll conducted in Arkansas found that 63% of respondents would favor state legislation protecting gay and transgender people from employment discrimination. Similarly, in response to a national poll conducted in 2011, 71% of respondents from Arkansas said that Congress should pass a federal law to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, other polls have found that 79% of Arkansas residents think that LGBT people experience a moderate amount to a lot of discrimination in the state.
• At most, approximately 22 cases of sexual orientation or gender identity employment discrimination would be filed in Arkansas annually if the Arkansas Civil Rights Act were amended to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
• The additional cases could most likely be absorbed into Arkansas’s judicial system with minimal impact on judges, staff, and resources.

Download the full report