Sexual Orientation Task Force Report

Findings
Hiring, Career Advancement, Compensation/Benefits
Some employers intentionally discriminate against lesbian and gay job candidates because of their sexual orientation; few make an effort to include gays and lesbians in the pool of applicants.

The Lawyer Survey asked whether the individual respondents, with respect to their own firms or employing organizations, had “experienced, witnessed or heard” of various kinds of discriminatory treatment, including a lawyer's failure to receive an offer of employment as a result, in whole or in part, of being, or being perceived to be, lesbian or gay. In response to this question, 61 respondents reported having witnessed or heard that their own employers had engaged in such discrimination. (Lawyer Survey, Table 22.)16
The narrative comments of respondents to the Lawyer Survey, including heterosexual respondents, present vivid evidence that some employers specifically reject lesbian and gay candidates if they learn of the applicant's sexual orientation, while others maintain a workplace atmosphere that suggests to their own employees that lesbian and gay lawyers would not be hired. For example:
The partners of our firm unanimously hold homosexual conduct to be wrong. We do not employ and would not knowingly employ a homosexual attorney or homosexual staff member. App. C, Comment 166 (heterosexual respondent)
[C]andidates were expressly rejected by some partners on the [hiring] committee because they were gay....[N]o partner ever voted to extend an offer to a [known] gay candidate. Two partners, in fact, openly stated during a [hiring] committee meeting [remarks suggesting that gay lawyers shouldn't be hired]. App. C, Excerpt iv

I was told as a summer associate that I should not wear [certain clothes] because if people thought I was [gay], I would not get an offer. App. C, Comment 157 (heterosexual respondent)

In law school, I only interviewed with law firms having nondiscrimination policies that included sexual orientation. We had three weeks of on campus interviewing. For the first and third weeks, I used a “gay resume” For the second week, I used a “straight resume.” I got twice as many job offers from the one “straight week” than from the two “gay weeks” combined. App. C, Comment 242 (gay/lesbian respondent)

[Gay job candidate denied call back interview at respondent's firm because of membership in a gay/lesbian organization.] App. C, Comment 61 (heterosexual respondent)

I believe that the firm makes a very non-obvious effort not to hire those it suspects of being gay, regardless of the firm's expressions of nondiscrimination in hiring practices. App. C, Comment 204 (heterosexual respondent)

At my prior place of employment (mid-sized firm), I saw a very talented gay applicant rejected for no apparent reason. I can't prove it was discrimination, but I perceived it that way. App. C, Comment 64 (heterosexual respondent)

We have a boutique practice…I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect an openly gay attorney or law clerk applicant would have difficulty being hired here. App. C, Comment 42 (heterosexual respondent)

Partners at my firm occasionally make gay jokes. I strongly feel they would be uncomfortable hiring a gay attorney. App. C, Comment 93 (heterosexual respondent)

I do not believe that an openly gay or lesbian lawyer would be warmly received in my office. However, this issue has not presented itself. App. C, Comment 39 (heterosexual respondent)

I would never have been hired for this job if they had known [that I'm gay]. App. C, Comment 252 (gay/lesbian respondent)

Putting aside intentional discrimination, the responses to the Employer Survey indicate that few legal employers make an effort to include lesbian and gay lawyers among those they consider for jobs. Only four of the 117 respondent employers stated that they actively seek out lesbian and gay applicants when recruiting new lawyers. (Employer Survey, Table H.) The responses to the Lawyer Survey bear this out as well; the vast majority of respondents, in all groups (ranging from 64.4% to 82.1%), reported that their employing organizations do not actively seek out lesbian and gay applicants when recruiting new lawyers. (Lawyer Survey, Table 17.)

Obviously, the lawyers surveyed could not have “experienced” a discriminatory failure to hire by their own employers, and therefore this option was designated as “not applicable.” Respondents were also not asked whether they believe that they had ever not been hired elsewhere on the basis of being, or being perceived to be, gay or lesbian. The data presented in Table 22, therefore, must be viewed in context as pertaining only to the respondents' current workplaces, and not as a picture of hiring discrimination possibly suffered by a respondent elsewhere.