Equality Means Business Economic Impact Report - March 2015

Equality Means Business Advisory Board:

The Link Between Economic Competitiveness & Workplace Equal Opportunity in Florida March 2015

In partnership with:

About Equality Means Business

About Thinkspot Inc.

Equality Means Business was formed to spotlight major employers in Florida that have adopted comprehensive non-discrimination polices and have demonstrated their commitment to valuing and proactively including all employees. Our goal is to improve Florida’s national and international reputation as a welcoming and inclusive place to live, work, and visit.

Thinkspot Inc. is a Florida-based research and policy development consultancy. Client services include structural economic development, workforce strategy, community-driven issues management, strategic thinking, as well as public policy analysis and synthesis. For more information, visit our website (www.Thinkspot.co) or contact Teresa Barber at 850.692.9879.

By highlighting employers who have respect for diversity as a core value, Equality Means Business encourages and provides resources to Florida employers who understand that diversity brings the skills, perspective, and other assets that are essential to establishing a competitive workforce.

Membership in our Advisory Board is made up of companies and individuals who are highly respected for their commitment to creating a safe and productive workplace for all individuals including providing protection regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.

2

www.Thinkspot.co

Prepared for Equality Means Business

by Thinkspot Inc.

The Link Between Economic Competitiveness and Workplace Equal Opportunity in Florida

“When you have an almost 200 year business heritage and are active in more than 100 countries world-wide, diversity is part of your core, part of your fabric—you live it, you breathe it and you respect it.”

-Louis V. Buccino, Citi

“It doesn’t make sense from an economic development standpoint for the state to fail to support non-discrimination. Our leadership has been so engaged with local government on these issues because it has business impact.”

-Jason Altmire, Florida Blue

“At C1 Bank and at all of our investments around the world, we strive to hire the very best people and we realized early on that to compete for the very best talent on a global scale we needed to not only have inclusive policies, but inclusive practices.”

-Trevor Burgess, C1 Bank

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Florida State laws are negatively impacting business operations and profits to a much higher level than previously suspected. A groundbreaking study, released by Thinkspot Inc. in March 2015, demonstrates the costly negative impact on Florida’s employers from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) discrimination.

Equality Means Business, formed to spotlight major employers in Florida that have adopted comprehensive nondiscrimination policies, commissioned Thinkspot to conduct research addressing the economic case for ending discrimination against LGBT people in the Sunshine State.

The study details extensive analysis of published research and findings from in-depth interviews with C-level business leaders. It reveals negative costs realized by individual employees, employers, and Florida’s business community. Study findings also illuminate areas of erosion for Florida’s competitive position in the global marketplace. This summary provides highlights of the study’s findings.

• $362 lost annually, based on turnover and lost productivity alone • Diminished global competitiveness • Inconsistent policies within the state • Talent loss, especially among Millennials • Public support and legislative effectiveness

The Costs The costs resulting from lost productivity and employee turnover alone are estimated conservatively to exceed $362 million annually. Other costs recognized by the state’s business community include forgone new business opportunities, product quality degradation, customer loyalty erosion, safety incidents, corporate reputation damage, and lost opportunities to attract talent—particularly among the Millennial generation.

The cost of LGBT discrimination is not isolated to the individual. Discrimination in the workplace negatively impacts the host company, its customers, its industry (e.g., supply chain), and the geo-political areas (i.e., city, county, state) those employers call home. Research demonstrates that the link from employee engagement to profits and competitiveness is direct.

Research specific to the LGBT community illustrates the results of experiencing a negative workplace: • Left job because the environment was not accepting: 9% • Avoided working on a specific project: 9% • Stayed home from work: 15% • Avoided working with certain clients or customers: 17% • Searched for a different job: 22%

• Avoided a social event at work: 24% • Avoided certain people at work: 27% • Felt unhappy or depressed at work: 30% • Felt distracted from work: 30%

Diminished Competitiveness For many companies, a culture of non-discrimination fostered and maintained through policies is a prerequisite for daily operations. Global corporate peers demand their vendors demonstrate “cultural intelligence.” Global business opportunities (i.e., revenues) are lost in the absence of workforce discrimination protection.

Responses from business executives reveal that representative companies have interests far beyond the ability to attract and retain the best talent, as well as responding to global customers’ demands for inclusion policies as a prerequisite for doing business.

The currently unrealized effort to pass federal legislation providing non-discrimination intensifies the competition between states in realizing the benefits of protection in the workplace. Florida ranks in the middle of the national pack at 25. Florida businesses are at a competitive disadvantage created by the collective perception as being hostile to the LGBT community.

The lack of protections available to LGBT people in a state like Florida stands in stark contrast to the protections available in high-equality states, where state law eliminates these differential costs.

4

www.Thinkspot.co

Prepared for Equality Means Business

by Thinkspot Inc.

Rankings of “LGB Social Climate” Scores for the 50 states and the District of Columbia* District of Columbia 1 Vermont 2 Hawaii 3 Massachusetts 3 New York 5 Rhode Island 6 Connecticut 7 Maryland 8 New Jersey 8 California 10 Delaware 10 Maine 12 New Hampshire 12 Oregon 12 Washington 12 Illinois 16 Colorado 17

New Mexico 17 Minnesota 19 Nevada 19 Michigan 21 Wisconsin 21 Pennsylvania 23 Virginia 23 Florida 25 Missouri 25 Ohio 25 Iowa 28 Arizona 29 Alaska 31 Montana 31 Indiana 33 North Dakota 34 South Dakota 34

Kansas 36 North Carolina 36 Nebraska 38 Georgia 39 Texas 40 Idaho 41 South Carolina 42 Arkansas 43 Tennessee 43 Kentucky 44 Alabama 45 Mississippi 45 Utah 45 Wyoming 45 Louisiana 49 Oklahoma 49 West Virginia 49

*LGB Social Climate Scores developed by Williams Institute, UCLA

Inconsistent Policies Within the State

In researching for the report, the authors discovered employers that made significant effort to implement internal policies that protect members of the LGBT community within the office, but felt those efforts were “undercut” by inaction or regressive action of government at the local and state levels. The interviews also revealed a perception that some governments appear to be actively working against companies’ ability to create a “safe” and “inclusive” environment and fail to demonstrate critical “cultural intelligence” to industry peers and global partners.

An employer pointed out that the workplace is only one part of the factor—an employee would also need to go home and may have a partner working at a different location without protections and could face any number of other discriminations. One CEO noted where a highly-sought after C-level candidate turned down a very attractive job offer because, although the company was a great fit and provided partner benefits and other protections, the candidate did not feel he would be welcomed in the state and in the community. Potential employees considering work in Florida carefully examine the environment created by the host communities and state.

Interviews with Florida Business Leaders

In-depth interviews were conducted with participants representing organizations of varying sizes and sectors, from manufacturing and medical services to Florida’s emerging tech sector. They spanned in size of workforce from 18 to 400,000. The interview findings document an overall theme that broad and consistent discrimination protection is a matter of state competitiveness. This is especially evident for critical industries such as technology, tourism, and medical services, and for companies operating or headquartered out of the state while competing within a global market.

For many companies, a culture of non-discrimination fostered and maintained through formal policies is a prerequisite consideration for daily operations and for promoting their own relevancy among global corporate peers who demand their supply chain partners and vendors demonstrate “cultural intelligence”.

THE FLORIDA EXECUTIVES REVEALED SEVERAL THEMES DURING THEIR DISCUSSIONS: • Damaged State Reputation • Economic Development Imperative • Millennial Workers Demand Diversity, Inclusion • Supporting Discrimination Protection is Status Quo for Business • Non-Discrimination Demanded Throughout Supply Chains • Non-Discrimination a Prerequisite for Business • Inconsistencies in Local Government Counterproductive • Competitiveness as a State Interest

5

Damaged State Reputation

Leaders provided continual reference to concerns over Florida’s negative reputation, especially related to diversity, inclusion, and discrimination at the state-level. Executives link this reputation issue to the loss of highly sought-after candidates, the direct loss of high-potential incumbent talent, and hesitancy of large global partners considering acquisitions or including Florida companies as supply chain partners, often in a global arena.

Executives noted that when identifying their companies as operating within or headquartered in Florida, responses of industry peers, potential partners, or clients will often be negative and even express doubt about the value and validity of the company itself. Executives linked these responses directly to negative perceptions of Florida’s brand as “backwards” and not promoting diversity of ideas and cultures.

Participants repeatedly noted that they had to exert deliberate effort to “overcome” negative reputational issues related with being headquartered or having major operations within Florida. On one account, a company headquartered in a major metropolitan area in Florida noted that their largest competitor (based out of California) had raised questions about how “good your talent could actually be” because they are living and working in Florida “where basic human protections are either not provided or fought against.”

An Economic Development Imperative

Seventy-five percent (75%) of the participants noted plans to expand in the coming 36 months. Several reported that relocation or expansion decisions were made in favor of a location with a public policy climate that promoted diversity and non-discrimination for the LGBT community.

Millennial Expectations

The executives suggest that Millennials are flocking to workplaces where they believe their values are reflected, and suggest they want a company culture that “treats all people fairly.” Meanwhile, leaders report hearing frequent expressions of frustration and confusion by highly-sought younger workers at why “some older people” make a “big deal” out of non-discrimination (in and outside of the workplace) or speak actively about LGBT issues in negative, cautionary, or bigoted tones. Competing for talent, particularly for members of the Millennial generation now entering the workforce, makes inclusion and diversity a requisite.

Supporting Discrimination Protection is Status Quo

Executives suggest that the “battle is over” in corporate America and the boardroom. Supporting discrimination protection is status quo for large companies and for most medium-sized firms, and a requirement for competition in many cases. Business leaders felt their competitive positioning efforts were “undercut” by negative or absent external public policies in local markets and inaction at the state level to support business needs. Some suggested the need for state action to address these issues and eradicate both the negative perceptions of the state and cultural landscape.

Compliance Throughout Supply Chains

Failing to represent the presence and authentic implementation of a non-discrimination policy can result in real, hard loss of revenue from global clients and partners as well as significant damage to brand reputation.

A Prerequisite for BUsiness

For companies to compete for business, they must both have and evidence non-discrimination policies and culture.

Another element relates to softer aspects of brand reputation and acceptance among industry peer groups. Leaders express “reputation” as extremely delicate and important, especially in the early stages of competitive opportunities.

Public Support and Legislative Effectiveness

Public opinion in Florida supports the passage of legal protections from workplace discrimination for LGBT people.

Survey results found that 73% of respondents supported passage of this legislation that would have added protections from sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination to existing state law. Three sources of public opinion data indicate that 80% of Florida residents think that LGBT people experience a moderate amount to a lot of discrimination in the state.

The study also shows evidence of the effectiveness of state legislation. Evidence from states with sexual orientation non-discrimination laws indicates that the likelihood of a gay or lesbian employee in those areas even filing a legal complaint is estimated at only 0.01 to 0.08 percent annually. ■

6

www.Thinkspot.co

Prepared for Equality Means Business

by Thinkspot Inc.

The Link Between Economic Competitiveness and Workplace Equal Opportunity in Florida

Contents Item

Page

Executive Summary

4

A Special Note to Interview Participants

8

Introduction

9

Origin and Types of Discrimination

9

Impacts on Workforce Engagement

10

Florida’s LGBT Community

11

Estimating Discriminating Rates

11

LGBT Discrimination Impacts Operations and the Bottom Line

12

Calculating the Costs of LGBT Discrimination

13

Results from Interviews with Florida Business Leaders

15

Current Florida Support for Non-discrimination

18

Competitiveness as a State Interest

20

Evidence of Legislative Effectiveness

22

Conclusion

23

APPENDIX Exhibit 1

24

End Notes

25

7

A Special Note to Interview Participants The authors and sponsors of this report wish to thank the following organizations and leaders for sharing their insights and time in support of this research. Through in-depth discussions that lasted between 15 and 90 minutes, these leaders provided a wealth of valuable and diverse insights on the topics of diversity, non-discrimination, cultural intelligence, and market competitiveness.

8

AppRiver

Holly Sharrett, HR Director

Clark Partington Hart

Daniel Harrell, Senior Associate

Florida Blue

Nick Kouris, Regional Business Development Manager

The Haskell Company

Steve Halverson, CEO

HSN Inc.

Christopher Gassett, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel

IBM Corporation

Emily Santos, Corporate Citizenship & Corporate Affairs Manager for Alabama, Florida, Indiana, and Puerto Rico

JetBlue Airways

Tobias Bushway, Senior Field Generalist

Keller Williams Realty Gulf Coast

Jen Hubbell, CEO & Team Leader

Marriott

Thomas “T.J.� Maloney, Director of Government Affairs

Miami Heat

Eric Woolworth, President of Business Operations

On Top of the World Communities

Kenneth D. Colen, President

Regions Bank

Steve Nivet, Area President

Royal Caribbean

Grant Van Ulbrich, Associate Vice President - Onboard Revenue & Sales

Symantec Corporation

John McGoun, Vice President - Senior Site Executive

Tampa Bay Rays

Brian Auld, President

Tech Data Corporation

John Tonnison, Executive Vice President & Chief Information Officer

TekMethods

Lori Sechio, President & CEO

University of North Florida

John Delaney, President

Verified Label

Ray Sikorski, President & CEO

Wells Fargo

David Guzman, Regional President

www.Thinkspot.co

Prepared for Equality Means Business

by Thinkspot Inc.

The Link Between Economic Competitiveness and Workplace Equal Opportunity in Florida

Introduction This report investigates the various forms of discrimination and its connection to business competitiveness. Results show that a conservative calculation of employer losses—based on lost productivity and turnover alone—reduces the collective bottom line in Florida by more than $362 million annually. We find that discrimination and workplace aggression generate additional employer costs across a spectrum of factors, including profitability, customer loyalty, quality, and safety.

A series of in-depth intervie​ws with executives from small to large businesses reveals the degree to which the public and business community supports equal treatment fostered by discrimination protection. Responses from representative business leaders reveal that companies have interests in promoting non-discrimination far beyond the ability to attract and retain the best talent, or to respond to global customers’ demands for inclusion policies as a prerequisite for doing business. This report documents an emerging theme that broad and consistent discrimination protection is a matter of state competitiveness.

Finally, subsequent research findings support the business community’s assertion through the in-depth interview process that non-discrimination protections can work to address the core problem of unfair treatment and aggression in the workplace. We also found considerable evidence of the state acting in the interest of facilitating the competitiveness of individual businesses and industries in the global marketplace.

Origins and Types of Discrimination Research on discrimination identifies multiple classes and types of discrimination in the workplace. According to the Praeger Handbook on Understanding and Preventing Workplace Discrimination, two classes of discrimination, formal and interpersonal, are found across nearly a dozen types:1 Age Genetic information National origin Race/color Retaliation Sexual orientation

Equal compensation Disability Pregnancy Religion Sex/gender

This report speaks to the prevalence and impact of workplace discrimination against members of the LGBT community. Discrimination has been heavily researched for decades as the academic community has sought to understand racism and sexism, which are two forms of discrimination differing in their targets and manifestations but common in their grounding in an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes forms of behavior, identity, relationship, and community.

To simplify a very complex set of terms, the published literature speaks generally of two primary classes of discrimination: formal and interpersonal. Formal workplace discrimination refers to overt acts of treating a person (an applicant or an employee) less favorably, including unequal treatment in hiring and promotion, access, and distribution of resources.

Interpersonal forms are more subtle nonverbal and indirect verbal behaviors during personal interactions.2 Observable acts of anti-LGBT attitudes and discrimination vary in form, such as hate speech, negative stereotypes, bans against marriage and adoption for same-sex couples, and prohibiting gays from serving in the military.3 Manifestations of antiLGBT attitudes are connected to a sexual-orientation worldview that Dr. D. W. Sue describes as a belief that (a) all people are/or should be heterosexual, (b) it is more desirable to be heterosexual, and (c) it represents the norm of both gender identity and sexual attraction.4

9

Impacts on Workforce Engagement In exploring the impact of discrimination on intent to harm,8 they found examples of uncivil behavior the business community, research connects the when supervisors or co-workers talk down to others or individual psychological impacts stemming make demeaning remarks.9 from both formal and informal discrimination to The relationship between the proliferation of formal and detrimental economic impact in the marketplace. interpersonal discrimination against the LGBT community Studies have investigated how various types is underscored by rigorous experimental research of negative workplace behaviors influence conducted in field settings that clearly shows that gay organization-level, group-level, and individualmen, lesbians and transgender persons are “subject to level outcomes. In early explorations, literature more discrimination, including hiring discrimination as focused on workplace aggression, bullying, and well as more subtle forms of interpersonal discrimination abusive supervision. This research connected (for example, decreased friendliness, helping) inside as the detrimental effects of negative workplace well as outside of the employment sphere.”10 behaviors to the work Amir Erez, of the University of attitudes, work behaviors, and well-being of those “We’ve lost top candidates because Florida, and his colleagues from Oregon State and the National being targeted.5 of the perception of the government University of Singapore, provide Issues stemming from climate. Some local policies have a a recent review documenting discrimination targeted wide, confusing array of meanings.” incivility research across dozens of toward the LGBT community workplace contexts11 and relating — John Delaney are well documented uncivil experiences across the President, University of North Florida in the literature.6 LGBT spectrum of emotional, attitudinal, people are among similarly 2015 Business Leader Interview Participant cognitive, and behavioral marginalized groups who 12 outcomes.

Among the more describe their work climates relevant attitudinal outcomes to to researchers as hostile, this report is the presence of diminished commitment invalidating, and insulting because of the forms to their employers,13 loss of motivation,14 and lower of discrimination that assail their race, sexual satisfaction with supervisors, coworkers,15 and their job16 orientation, or gender identity, deplete their in comparison to employees who do not experience psychic energies, restrict their work options, lower incivility at work. their work productivity, generate suppressed rage and anger, stereotype them as less worthy workers, and detrimentally impact their recruitment/hiring, retention, and promotion in The relationship between formal and organizations.7 When considering negative workplace behavior, research on incivility has gained considerably more attention from the private sector due in large part to the effort of Drs. Christine Pearson and Christine Porath. Defined as low-intensity deviant workplace behavior with an ambiguous

10

www.Thinkspot.co

interpersonal discrimination against

the LGBT community is underscored by rigorous experimental research.

Prepared for Equality Means Business

by Thinkspot Inc.

The Link Between Economic Competitiveness and Workplace Equal Opportunity in Florida

In 2013, a Harvard Business Review article reported figures illustrating the link between formal and interpersonal discrimination in the workplace and business-related outcomes in the marketplace. Drs. Porath and Pearson surveyed 800 managers and employees in 17 industries to learn how targets of discrimination react: » 12% said that they left their job because

of the uncivil treatment. » 25% admitted to taking their frustration » » » » » »

out on customers.

38% intentionally decreased the quality of their work.

47% intentionally decreased time spent at work.

48% intentionally decreased their work effort.

66% said that their performance declined.

78% said that their commitment to the organization declined.

80% lost work time worrying about the incident.

This strong evidence across research streams reveals a link between negative outcomes at work and in the level of employee engagement resulting from formal and interpersonal discrimination. Incivility, along with other forms of interpersonal discrimination, has been shown to undermine workplace collaboration and helpfulness, hinder productivity, and ultimately increase employee turnover.17 The size and scope of Florida’s problem in terms of lost workforce productivity and turnover resulting from LGBT discrimination is assessed with quantitative analysis and underscored by in-depth interviews with Florida business executives conducted exclusively for this report. Research uncovers dynamic factors that speak to the threat of LGBT discrimination to the business community’s competitiveness.

Florida’s LGBT Community Findings released earlier this year by the Williams Institute’s Christy Mallory and Brad Sears estimate that there are approximately 552,500 LGBT adults in Florida, including nearly 328,000 who are part of Florida’s workforce.18 A study released in December 2014 by Dr. Gary Gates, Distinguished Scholar at the Williams Institute, provides tabulations from the 2010 US Census to reveal that there are 48,496 same-sex couples living in Florida. By definition, same-sex couples are identified in the American Community Survey (ACS) when an adult in the household is identified as either the “husband/wife” or “unmarried partner” of the person who filled out the survey, referred to as the householder, and both partners or spouses are of the same sex. The majority of same-sex couples are male (55%).19 Sixteen percent of same-sex couples in Florida are raising children under age 18 in their homes. In the state, 7,699 same-sex couple households are raising 13,548 children.

Estimating Discrimination Rates Survey research establishes the prevalence of LGBTtargeted discrimination in the workplace as reported by those workers who self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, as well as reports by nonLGBT people who have witnessed discrimination against their LGBT co-workers.20 A national survey conducted

by Pew Research Center in 2013 found that 21% of LGBT respondents reported being treated unfairly by an employer in hiring, pay, or promotions.21 The 2008 General Social Survey (GSS), a project of the independent research organization NORC at the University of Chicago with principal funding from the National Science Foundation,22 found that 37% of gay men and lesbians had experienced workplace harassment in the last five years; and 12% had lost a job because of their sexual orientation. A 2010 survey within the University of North Florida found that 63% of LGBT faculty and staff had experienced at least one incident of bias or harassment on campus because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

11

When transgender people are surveyed lesbian in Florida is also subject to unique expenditures separately, they report similar or higher levels of for legal fees necessary to draw up protective documents, discrimination. A study representing the largest such as medical decision-making releases, wills and survey of transgender populations on record guardianship, as well as extra taxes on health insurance reported that 81% of respondents from Florida benefits for her partners. In high-equality states, state indicated they had experienced harassment or law eliminates these differential costs. mistreatment at work; and 56% were fired, not Vulnerable LGBT populations hired, or denied a promotion struggle to absorb the financial “You should really challenge because of their gender penalties imposed on them by 23 identity or expression. yourself to think deeply, and that’s unequal laws. They also lack the what CEOs are paid to do. We live financial resources to take steps to in a variegated, multicultural world mitigate the effects of these unfair built on tolerance and respect. I laws, nor to protect themselves and LGBT Discrimination hear younger workers say that this their families from those effects.25 Impacts Business Research shows that failures of Operations and the is the kind of place they want to Bottom Line be—one that doesn’t discriminate. law increase economic insecurity and poverty throughout the LGBT These are American values and Quantitative and qualitative community. The result is that LGBT what America has been built analysis reveals the complex Americans are more likely than interactions resulting from upon—diversity, tolerance, and non-LGBT Americans to be poor, formal and interpersonal respect.” even though individuals in samediscrimination in Florida’s sex couples are more likely to be in workplace. Discrimination— —Steve Halverson, The Haskell Company the labor force than individuals in at the federal, state, and 2015 Business Leader Interview Participant opposite-sex couples.26 local levels—strongly signals to LGBT people and their work colleagues that The cost of LGBT discrimination is not isolated to the they are of lesser worth than others. Researchers individual. Discrimination in the workplace negatively point to the implication that this signals to LGBT impacts the host company, its customers, its industry persons that their families and health are not (e.g., supply chain), and the geo-political areas (i.e., important and that their contributions at work city, county, state) those employers call home. Research are less valued.24 In economic terms, the lack demonstrates that the link from employee engagement of inclusive laws serves to stifle progress up to profits and competitiveness is direct. the ladder of prosperity. Without access to the A 2013 study released by Gallup, Inc. examined 263 same family tax credits and financial tools (e.g., research studies across 1,192 organizations in 49 credit needed for loans), housing, healthcare, industries and 34 countries.27 The authors reported health insurance, and education become evaluating 49,928 business/work units incorporating problems rather than foundations for creating or nearly 1.4 million employees. preserving wealth.

Nine business-related outcomes were studied and found The Williams Institute reports that the lack of to be related to employee engagement: protections available to LGBT people in a 1. Customer loyalty/engagement state like Florida stands in stark contrast to the 2. Profitability protections available in high-equality states. In 3. Productivity addition to the risk of being fired for being seen 4. Turnover by a supervisor in public with her partner, a 12

www.Thinkspot.co

Prepared for Equality Means Business

by Thinkspot Inc.

The Link Between Economic Competitiveness and Workplace Equal Opportunity in Florida

5. Safety incidents 6. Product loss/shrinkage 7. Absenteeism 8. Patient safety incidents 9. Quality/defects

Calculating the Costs of LGBT Discrimination

We can estimate the costs of interpersonal LGBT discrimination in the Florida workplace. We base our model on a case study of Cisco Systems presented by Drs. Porath and Pearson in their 2009 book, “The Employers with a high level of employee engagement were four times more likely to Cost of Bad Behavior” and their January-February have above average performance across (2013) Harvard Business Review article, “The Price 31 The following table illustrates the a composite measure created from the nine of Incivility.” factors. The differences in performance assumptions made in calculating the negative impact between firms with low-employee engagement of interpersonal discrimination in Florida. The Williams and those with high engagement were greatest Institute’s estimate of the number of non-agriculture employees in Florida is 328,000 and its estimate of in the prevalence of turnover (for low- Research specific to the LGBT community workforce not covered by a turnover companies), illustrates the results of experiencing a local ordinance that prohibits sexual orientation discrimination safety, quality/defects, negative workplace:30 in public and private sector absenteeism and » Left job because the environment employment is 46% or productivity.

These was not accepting: 9% 32 The rate of employees 150,880. findings underscore the » Avoided working on a specific who reported suffering connection between project: 9% depression or distraction from engagement and » Stayed home from work: 15% work (30%) as a result of an employer costs. » Avoided working with certain clients environment unwelcoming to Employee engagement or customers: 17% LGBT employees33 is applied to is central to business » Searched for a different job: 22% calculate the estimated number of success as illustrated » Avoided a social event at work: employees impacted. Estimates by the great lengths 24% of the hours lost to anxiety/ employers are found to » Avoided certain people at work: depression (classified as either be pursuing employee 27% absenteeism or presenteeism) is engagement. To wit, » Felt unhappy or depressed at work: taken from research published Forbes magazine in the Journal of the American 30% reports that employers Medical Association (5.6 hours/ » Felt distracted from work: 30% spend $46 billion week or 14%),34 which is a more each year—between conservative estimate than that provided by the Centers 1 – 2% of payroll—on employee recognition for Disease Control (16.3 days in a 3-month period or (e.g., awards, gold watches)28 in the name 25%).35 The sub-total of hours lost to absenteeism and of employee engagement. Likewise, analysis presenteeism (i.e., lost productivity) is multiplied by the

by Bersin and Associates for Deloitte projects state’s reported average hourly wage resulting in an organizations spending to exceed $720 estimated average cost per employee of $5,538 or million annually on employee engagement $250.7 million for the estimated impacted population improvement.29 We find there to be much at in Florida. stake when discrimination erodes employee engagement.

13

The costs from turnover are calculated by applying the percentage of LGBT employees who have left a job because the environment was not accepting (9% or 13,579) to the estimated LGBT population in Florida. The estimated turnover costs per departing employee was calculated to be $8,228 by applying the average turnover costs at 20% of total salary reported by the Center for American Progress36 and applied to the state’s reported average annual wage ($41,140). As a result the Florida employer cost from LGBT employee turnover is estimated at $111.7 million. The combined employer cost estimates realized from productivity and turnover losses alone reach $362.4 million per year.

Employer Costs

LGBT Persons in Florida Not protected by non-discrimination policies (46%) Productivity loss from depression/anxiety Employees impacted Estimated hours lost (5.6 hrs/wk x 50 wks) Average hourly wage Estimated cost per ave. employee Cost from lost productivity

328,000 150,880 30% 45,264 280 $19.78 $5,538 $250,690,138

Changed jobs (turnover rate) Employees impacted Average annual wage Estimated replacement/training cost Estimated turnover cost per employee Florida employer cost per turnover

9% 13,579 $41,140 20% $8,228 $111,729,658

ANNUAL Estimated Employer Costs $362,419,796

$362,419,796 Annually in Florida

The limits of the above calculation are reflected in the extensive resources necessary to document the impact across all possible variables, especially indirect or direct but intangible costs. For example, a study first appearing in Fortune Magazine reported that Fortune 1,000 firms spend 13% of their work time—or seven weeks a year—mending employees’ workplace relationships and otherwise dealing with the aftermath of incivility.37 To be certain, there are a host of costs and benefits not quantified in this— or any known—study. Despite the difficulty in comprehensive quantification, there is consensus as to the role these factors play in the business equation demonstrated by extensive research on the benefits of diversity in the workplace.

Time and space prevents an evaluation of

14

www.Thinkspot.co

diversity research in this report. Research from the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES) finds that the benefits of diversity and inclusion positively impact corporate performance across a comprehensive set of factors:38 1. Cost reductions 2. Labor shortages 3. Access to talent 4. Global management capacity 5. Access to new markets 6. Improved performance in existing markets 7. Innovation and creativity 8. Reputation with governments and other stakeholders 9. Marketing image 10. Cultural values

Prepared for Equality Means Business

by Thinkspot Inc.

The Link Between Economic Competitiveness and Workplace Equal Opportunity in Florida

Results from Interviews with Florida Business Leaders

operating or headquartered out of the state while competing within a global market.

As part of this research effort, Thinkspot For many companies, a culture of non-discrimination designed and conducted in-depth interviews fostered and maintained through formal policies is a with 20 executives in businesses active across prerequisite consideration for daily operations and for Florida’s geographic regions. The average promoting their own relevancy among global corporate interview lasted 45 minutes with the longest peers who demand their supply chain partners and vendors demonstrate “cultural intelligence.” It is also interview lasting an hour and often an authentic expression of core a half. While some companies “The travel industry is one of values, with some executives sharing reported being actively the biggest drivers in the Florida specific incidents of lost business engaged in organizations or economy, and the promotion or adapted site location decisions activities promoting equality of non-discrimination in the informed by their steadfast support and non-discrimination for the workplace really matters when for the values of diversity and LGBT community, most did trying to project a welcoming not. Participants represented image to every potential tourist— inclusion represented in their nondiscrimination policies. organizations of varying sizes our state leaders should be and sectors, from manufacturing The Florida executives revealed concerned about this.” and medical services to Florida’s several sub-themes during their —Thomas Maloney, Marriott emerging tech sector. They discussions, discussed below.

2015 Business Leader Interview spanned in size of workforce Participant from 18 to 400,000.  Damaged State Reputation Several of the participants represent companies with headquarters in Florida. As a group, they serve all of Florida’s regions, with 38% identifying their market as “statewide.” Input collected from these interviews reveals the degree to which companies and the business leadership community support—and in some cases demand—the execution of nondiscrimination policies and values. Insights from these interviews demonstrate business interest in non-discrimination that includes, but extends beyond, metrics that relate to the bottom line, the attraction and retention of talent, and the ability of firms to comply with diversity requisites of global supply chain partners.

Leaders provided continual reference to concerns over Florida’s negative reputation, especially related to diversity, inclusion, and discrimination at the statelevel. Executives link this reputation issue to the loss of highly sought-after candidates, the direct loss of highpotential incumbent talent, and hesitancy of large global partners considering acquisitions or including Florida companies as supply chain partners, often in a global arena. In such cases, companies must “appear relevant” and convey “cultural intelligence” amongst global peers who already accept (or demand) diversity and non-discrimination as a prerequisite. Additionally, executives noted that when identifying their companies as operating within or headquartered in Florida, The interview findings published in this report responses of industry peers, potential partners, or clients document an overall theme that broad and will often be negative and even express doubt about consistent discrimination protection is a matter of the value and validity of the company itself. Executives state competitiveness. This is especially evident linked these responses directly to negative perceptions for critical industries such as technology, tourism, of Florida’s brand as “backwards” and not promoting and medical services; and for companies diversity of ideas and cultures.

15

Participants repeatedly noted that they have had to exert deliberate effort to “overcome” negative reputational issues related with being headquartered or having major operations within Florida. In one account, a company headquartered in a major metropolitan area in Florida with global logistics operations out of another noted that their largest competitor (based out of California) had raised questions about how “good your talent could actually be” because they are living and working in Florida “where basic human protections are either not provided or fought against.”

leaders report hearing frequent expressions of frustration and confusion by highly-sought younger workers at why “some older people” make a “big deal” out of non-discrimination (in and outside of the workplace) or speak actively about LGBT issues in negative, cautionary, or bigoted tones.



Beyond the Tipping Point

Executives suggest that the “battle is over” in corporate America and the boardroom. Companies already are “there” (i.e., recognizing the value of inclusion and discrimination protection) and if they’re not, they’re quickly heading there. Supporting discrimination protection is status quo for large companies and for  An Economic Development Imperative most medium-sized firms. Participants illustrate a trend When asked whether they were planning growth of top executive leadership driving cultural change changes in the coming 36 months, 75% of the within their organizations, eager to promote broad participants noted plans to expand. While company culture supporting diversity. Executives most reported that they had not made growth expressed critical business impacts related to promoting decisions (expanding, contracting, relocating non-discrimination and broad diversity, including facilities or operations) based on the non- efforts to recruit and retain the brightest of the highly discrimination policies of a mobile Millennial talent pool and market, city, or state, several to maintain relevance with global “It doesn’t make sense from an reported that relocation or customers. In some cases, those expansion decisions were economic development standpoint business efforts were viewed as made in favor of a location for the state to fail to support non- “undercut” by negative or absent discrimination. Our leadership with a public policy climate external public policies and a that promoted diversity and lack of action at the state level has been so engaged with local non-discrimination for the to support the needs of business government on these issues LGBT community. around these issues and eradicate because it has business impact.” both the negative perceptions of the corporate cultural landscape —Jason Altmire, Florida Blue in Florida and the confusing  Millennial Expectations patchwork quilt of various local As a broad group, younger policies. Of all participants, many have maintained workers (including those who do not identify non-discrimination policies with specific protections for as LGBT) present as more attuned to and members of the LGBT community for multiple decades adamant for social justice and fairness. The with nearly all in place for at least five years. executives suggest that Millennials are flocking to workplaces where they believe their values are reflected, and suggest they want a company culture that “treats all people fairly.” Meanwhile,

16

www.Thinkspot.co

Prepared for Equality Means Business

by Thinkspot Inc.

The Link Between Economic Competitiveness and Workplace Equal Opportunity in Florida



Compliance Throughout Supply Chains

identity/expression) during vendor and partner prequalification processes. Executives noted that while not all customers may request review of policies or process this information through scorecards, many do.

These commonplace reviews of non-discrimination policies, amid already-fierce competition for business, underscore one element of the prerequisite nature of non-discrimination policy and corporate behavior for competition. For companies to compete for business, they must both have and evidence non-discrimination policies and culture.

Many companies, especially larger ones with tremendous buying power throughout their supply chains, will only select supply chain partners who have and “live” non-discrimination policies (as well as policies on a number of critical corporate citizenship issues) that reflect their core values. Failing to represent the presence and authentic implementation of a nondiscrimination policy can result in real, hard loss of revenue from global clients and partners as well as significant damage to brand reputation. Another element relates to softer aspects of brand Participants working with public sector clients, reputation and acceptance among industry peer groups. including cities and agencies, also note that Participants identified non-discrimination policies and the appearance of “cultural many clients request review intelligence” as a requirement for of non-discrimination policies companies to just “get in the door” during pre-qualification “Had we not had our policy and be perceived as a potential processes designed to in place because we already partner, supplier, vendor—or vet vendors.

Executives believed it was the right thing to acknowledged as a peer. As one noted “compliance” with the scorecards or pre-qualification do, we certainly would have after executive noted, when working review processes of global our largest client asked about it.” in a diverse and dynamic global climate, you must convey cultural companies and communities —2015 Business Leader Interview intelligence (for example, off-color as a consideration strongly Participant jokes about religions, ethnicities, promoting the desirability of or sexual orientation will quickly non-discrimination policies. return a slamming door or cold As one participant noted in shoulder on preliminary negotiations for partnership, reference to her largest customer, “had we not had our policy in place because we already merger, etc.). Leaders express “reputation” as extremely believed it was the right thing to do, we certainly delicate and important, especially in the early stages would have after our largest client asked about of competitive opportunities. As one participant noted, if a company does not convey a basic sense of cultural it.” intelligence when courting business in Dubai, Ireland, or Brazil and contending with various ethnicities, religious backgrounds, sexual orientations, and languages, that  Prerequisite for Business company may promptly be written off as “irrelevant” as Participants noted non-discrimination policies a competitor amongst global peers. Global companies as a prerequisite for business, especially when are expected to function respectfully among a spectrum operating on a national or global scale. As of cultural factors, including sexual orientation and previously noted, many global companies and gender identity/expression. governments or agencies review and consider the non-discrimination policies (expressly including sexual orientation and gender

17

 Inconsistencies Seen as Counterproductive

Current Florida Support for Non-Discrimination

Executives promoting non-discrimination for a variety of reasons, such as alignment with morals and core values, recruitment and retention of talent, market positioning, and compliance with supply chain partners’ citizenship scorecards, expressed frustration with the public sector they may perceive as “standing in the way” of companies’ ability to create a “great place to work.” Participants indicated that they have made significant effort to implement internal policies that protect members of the LGBT community within the office, but those efforts may be “undercut” by inaction or regressive action of government at the local and state levels.

Qualitative analysis suggests that the private sector has more than just a casual interest in fostering protections against discriminations in the workplace. In fact, many of Florida’s top companies and employers have adopted internal corporate policies that prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, at least 70 companies headquartered in Florida prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, including 25 Fortune 1000 companies; and 23 companies headquartered in Florida have gender identity nondiscrimination policies, including 14 Fortune 1000 companies.39 Six Florida companies earned a perfect 100 in the Human Rights Campaign’s “Corporate The interviews also revealed a perception Equality Index 2015,” reflecting best practices in the that some governments appear to be actively Sunshine State for protecting their employees: working against companies’ ability to create » Akerman LLP a “safe” and “inclusive” environment and to demonstrate critical cultural intelligence to » Florida Blue, Inc. industry peers and global partners. As one CEO » Carlton Fields Jordan Burt LLP participant noted, he has put forward great effort to promote a culture of inclusivity, safety, » Holland & Knight LLP and non-discrimination and to ensure that all » Office Depot, Inc. employees have equal opportunities regardless of the attributes about themselves which they » Tech Data Corporation cannot change (including their identification as LGBT). However, he noted that the workplace would be only one part of the factor. That Exhibit 1 illustrates one example of how corporate employee would also need to go home and may support for LGBT inclusiveness cascades from the have a partner working at a different location executive suites of Florida employers. However, without protections and could face any number businesses are not islands. The strength of entire of other discriminations. The CEO noted one industries is undermined by any combination of the 10 specific instance where a highly-sought after factors introduced by the Centre for Evaluation Services C-suite candidate turned down a very attractive (see page 14). Further, the symbiotic relationship job offer because, although the company was between cities and their business community is impacted a great fit and provided partner benefits on by the positions each takes in terms of inclusion and other protections, the candidate did not feel discrimination reputations. As our interview findings they would be welcomed in the state and in demonstrate, potential employees considering work the community. Another leader noted that a top in Florida carefully examine the environment created employee informed him he “feels more safe, has by the host cities and state. An indication of Florida’s more rights inside the office than outside work at his own home.”

18

www.Thinkspot.co

Prepared for Equality Means Business

by Thinkspot Inc.

The Link Between Economic Competitiveness and Workplace Equal Opportunity in Florida

competitive position is found in the 2014 The Williams Institute’s LGB Social Climate Scores Municipal Equality Index ratings published of the 50 States and the District of Columbia as part of a joint project of the Human Rights State Score Rank Campaign and Equality Federation Institute.40 District of Columbia 92 1 Of 15 metropolitan areas rated in the index, Vermont 78 2 only three scored a perfect 100: Orlando, St. Hawaii 76 3 Petersburg and Wilton Manors (with Tampa Massachusetts 76 3 earning a 97). Port Saint Lucie and Jacksonville New York 75 5 lagged with the lowest scores of 14 and 20, Rhode Island 73 6 respectively.

Connecticut 72 7 Maryland 71 8 Florida Cities Final Scores in the Municipal New Jersey 71 8 Equality Index 2014 California 70 10 Cape Coral 22 Delaware 70 10 Fort Lauderdale 76 Maine 68 12 Hialeah 49 New Hampshire 68 12 Hollywood 61 Oregon 68 12 Jacksonville 20 Washington 68 12 Miami 53 Illinois 67 16 Miami Shores 61 Colorado 65 17 Oakland Park 87 New Mexico 65 17 Orlando 100 Minnesota 64 19 Pembroke Pines 51 Nevada 64 19 Port Saint Lucie 14 Michigan 63 21 St. Petersburg 100 Wisconsin 63 21 Tallahassee 81 Pennsylvania 62 23 Tampa 97 Virginia 62 23 Wilton Manors 100 Florida 60 25 Missouri 60 25 Ohio 60 25 The currently unsuccessful effort to pass Iowa 59 28 federal legislation providing non-discrimination intensifies the competition between states Arizona 58 29 in realizing the benefits of protection in the Alaska 57 30 workplace. Here Florida finds itself in the middle Montana 57 30 of the national pack tied for 25 with Missouri Indiana 56 32 and Ohio, according to state ranking scored North Dakota 55 33 as part of the LGB Social and Political Climate 41 South Dakota 55 33 Index released by the Williams Institute.

Kansas 54 35

19

State North Carolina Nebraska Georgia Texas Idaho South Carolina Arkansas Tennessee Kentucky Alabama Mississippi Utah Wyoming Louisiana Oklahoma West Virginia

Score 54 52 51 51 50 49 48 48 47 46 46 46 46 45 45 45

Rank 35 37 38 38 40 41 42 42 44 45 45 45 45 49 49 49

Despite Florida’s low ranking, the Williams Institute also reports that public opinion in Florida supports the passage of legal protections from workplace discrimination for LGBT people based on evidence collected during the deliberations over the Competitive Workforce Act in 2013.

Survey results found that 73% of respondents supported passage of this legislation that would have added protections from sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination to existing state law.42 Analysis from Williams Institute researchers, Andrews Flores and Scott Barclay, points to three sources of public opinion data which indicates that 80% of Florida residents think that LGBT people experience a moderate amount to a lot of discrimination in the state.43

Competitiveness as a State Interest Research reveals evidence that Florida’s legislative bodies have historically taken action to improve the positions of its entire business community by intervening in the competitive postures of individual businesses. Four examples are provided as snapshots to demonstrate the precedent and extent of such intervention in the name of state competitiveness.

Sections 288.001 and 288.047, Florida Statutes, establish the Florida Small Business Development Center Network and Quick Response Training programs, respectively. Excerpts from the statutes illustrate that assisting businesses and workforce in their pursuit of greater competitiveness in the marketplace is a specific state objective: 288.001 (1) PURPOSE.—The Florida Small Business Development Center Network is the principal business assistance organization for small businesses in the state. The purpose of the network is to serve emerging and established for-profit, privately held businesses that maintain a place of business in the state.

288.047 Quick-response training for economic development.— (1) The Quick-Response Training Program is created to meet the workforce-skill needs of existing, new, and expanding industries….Workforce Florida, Inc., shall provide technical services and shall identify businesses that seek services through the program….

Similarly, the legislative declaration which serves to justify the assistance provided to high-impact businesses reflects action to intervene in individual corporate operations in the interests of the state’s collective benefit.

20

www.Thinkspot.co

Prepared for Equality Means Business

by Thinkspot Inc.

The Link Between Economic Competitiveness and Workplace Equal Opportunity in Florida

288.108 High-impact business.— provide widespread economic benefits to the public (1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND through high-quality employment opportunities in DECLARATIONS.—The Legislature finds such facilities or in related facilities attracted to that attracting, retaining, and providing the state, through the increased tax base provided favorable conditions for the growth of certain by the high-impact facility and related businesses, high-impact facilities provides widespread through an enhanced entrepreneurial climate in the economic benefits to Florida citizens through state and the resulting business and employment high-quality employment opportunities in opportunities, and through the stimulation and the facility and in related facilities attracted enhancement of the state’s universities and community to Florida, through the increased tax base colleges. In the global economy, there exists serious provided by the high-impact facility and and fierce international competition for these its related sector businesses, through an facilities, and in most instances, when all available enhanced entrepreneurial climate in the state resources for economic development have been used, and the resulting business and employment the state continues to encounter severe competitive opportunities, and through the stimulation and disadvantages in vying for these business facilities. enhancement of the state’s universities and Florida’s rural areas must provide a competitive community colleges. It is the policy of this state environment for business in the information age. This to stimulate growth of these business sectors often requires an incentive to make it feasible for and the state economy by enhancing Florida’s private investors to provide infrastructure in those competitive position and encouraging the areas. location of such major high-impact facilities in the state.

The state’s economic gain from the improved competitiveness of its native businesses is ultimately reflected in tax revenues or budget savings. As A fourth example is taken from the introductory language in Section 288.1088, Florida Statutes, necessary as revenues and savings are to funding which creates the state’s Quick Action Closing public services, the willingness of the state to expend Fund. The program puts strong emphasis on the (or invest) funds and political capital in efforts designed to strengthen the competitiveness of its native businesses need to address competitive disadvantages. is also evident. In addition to the examples above of 288.1088 Quick Action Closing Fund.— statutorily created programming with direct funding, we found the state’s support of the business community’s (1)(a) The Legislature finds that attracting, competitiveness in the creation of various targeted tax retaining, and providing favorable conditions treatments (i.e., exemptions, differential rates, credits, for the growth of certain high-impact business refunds, and allowances). In fact, the degree of such facilities, privately developed critical rural state intervention to enhance individual company and industry competitiveness for the fiscal year 2014-2015 infrastructure, or key facilities in economically is estimated to be $15.89 billion.44 distressed urban or rural communities which

21

Evidence of Legislative Effectiveness

against African-Americans49 and women.50 Studies focusing on just how legislation accomplishes this objective Our research concludes with an examination of identify impacts resulting from both instrumental how state competitiveness might be realized and symbolic effects of legislation on discriminatory should it seek to address the detrimental impact behavior. A substantial body of empirical evidence of LGBT discrimination through legislation. First, supports the assertion that prejudiced employers are we find in the research evidence reflecting the found to discriminate less because non-discrimination positive impact created by non-discrimination laws “create an ’expected cost’ of a magnitude that policies on the sexual orientation wage gap. A equals the cost of law violation if caught (e.g., attorney’s comparison of wages by gay men, for example, fees and fines) multiplied times the probability of being who live in areas without sexual orientation caught.”51 Yet this instrumental role of legislation, which antidiscrimination laws affects behavior to the extent have been found to be that punishment is expected, is “Even though we’re still in a position subject to greater wage insufficient chiefly because the where sexual orientation and discrimination than gay probability of an employer facing gender identity are not protected men who live in areas with legal consequences for engaging such a legal protection.45 characteristics under the text of Title in employment discrimination is Two additional studies VII, the body of interpreting case law remarkably small. Evidence from worth noting found continues to develop. Discriminatory states with sexual orientation nonevidence that state discrimination laws indicates that acts are no longer shielded by Title antidiscrimination policies the likelihood of a gay or lesbian significantly increased VII’s silence. It’s in the best interests employee in those areas even filing of businesses to accept sexual earnings for gay men. a legal complaint is estimated at Amanda Baumle and orientation and gender identity as part only 0.01 to 0.08 percent annually.

Dudley Poston published This is a rate that is no less likely of law and to act accordingly.” research in 2011 that than the proportion of women and —Daniel Harrell, Clark Partington Hart found a significant impact minorities who file legal complaints of state antidiscrimination 2015 Business Leader Interview Participant of discrimination.52 Findings shared policies on annual by the Williams Institute in March 46 earnings, and Marieka 2015 indicate that adding sexual Klawitter shared evidence the same year that orientation and gender identity to Florida’s current state (but not local) antidiscrimination policies non-discrimination law would result in approximately were associated with greater weeks worked 154 additional complaints being filed with the Florida for gay men, especially in private-sector Commission on Human Relations each year with no jobs.47 This impact of policies designed to limit corresponding variation in the Commission’s budget. discrimination on earnings differences for gay Researchers anticipate that new complaints based on men was echoed in Dr. Klawitter’s 2015 meta- sexual orientation and gender identity could likely be analysis on the effects of sexual orientation on absorbed into the existing system with no need for earnings.48 additional staff and negligable costs.53 Legislation has broader impact than addressing The critical change created by law is realized individual earnings. History and research have symbolic rather than purely instrumental effects.54 demonstrated the success of antidiscrimination is, symbolic effects come into play even without legislation as significantly reducing discrimination possibility of tangible punishment, legislation

22

www.Thinkspot.co

from That “any may

Prepared for Equality Means Business

by Thinkspot Inc.

The Link Between Economic Competitiveness and Workplace Equal Opportunity in Florida

reduce a given act (discrimination) simply by designating it as illegal, criminal, or deviant.”54 The law works not simply as a result of the fear of punishment; rather, people fear violating the law because it authoritatively describes moral rules of conduct.56 As such, antidiscrimination legislation may create a clear social norm that discrimination is societally unacceptable.

Conclusion Sexual orientation and transgender discrimination presents the latest case in the nation’s path toward equal protection. This research report demonstrates the negative impacts on Florida’s employers and the state’s global competitiveness. The costs resulting from lost productivity and employee turnover alone are estimated conservatively to exceed $362 million annually. Other costs recognized by the state’s business community include forgone new business opportunities, product quality degradation, customer loyalty erosion, safety incidents, corporate reputation damage, and lost opportunities to attract talent—particularly incoming Millennial generation.

Legislation is a catalyst for change. The extent of prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity can be expected to modify in the same manner as attitudes shifted in race and sex—even when the prejudice is indicated privately, absent any real possibility of conflict or criticism.57 A network or viral effect is strong enough that even learning the opinion of a Analysis indicates that state-wide efforts to address stranger has been shown to change others’ business competitiveness are precedented and that legislation providing LGBT discrimination protection can attitudes toward out-group members.58 be expected to have both instrumental and symbolic Attitudes impact practice. For example, impact on discrimination in the workplace. The broad Laura Barron assessed the extent of hiring range of findings demonstrates that treating people discrimination among human resource managers unequally is reducing Florida’s bottom line. and found those managers working in areas without antidiscrimination laws evaluated the applicant as less hirable when he was identified as gay compared to when the applicant was presented as non-gay. However, no hirability differences between the gay and non-gay applicants were found in areas with antidiscrimination laws.59 The impact of such non-discrimination policies in the workplace translates into an improved environment for the employees. Gay and lesbian employees also perceive less discrimination when organizational sexual orientation nondiscrimination policies are in place than when they are not.60

23

Exhibit 1  

24

www.Thinkspot.co

Prepared for Equality Means Business

by Thinkspot Inc.

The Link Between Economic Competitiveness and Workplace Equal Opportunity in Florida

End Notes 1.

Paludi, M. A., Paludi, and DeSouza, E. (2011).

Praeger Handbook on Understanding and Preventing Workplace Discrimination. Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

2.

Hebl, M., Foster, J.M., Mannix, L. M., and Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study examination of applicant bias.

Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 28, 815 – 825.

3.

Sue, D.W. (2010). Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p. 189.

4.

Ibid., p. 190.

Schilpzand, Pauline, Irene E. De Pater, and Amir 5.

Erez. “Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, September 24, 2014, 1-32.

Balsam, K.F., Molina, Y., Beadnell, B., Simoni, 6.

J., & Walters, K. (2011). Measuring multiple minority stress: The LGBT People of Color Microaggressions Scale.

Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 163-174. Doi:10.1037/a0023244; Nadal, K.L., & Issa, M.A., et al. (2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions: “Death by a thousand cuts” for lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8, 234-259; Nadal, K.L., Rivera, D.P., & Corpus, M.J.H. (2010).

Sexual orientation and transgender microaggressions in everyday life: Experiences of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender individuals. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact, p 217 – 240. New York, NY: Wiley; Nadal, K.L., Skolnik, A., & Wong, Y. (2012).

Interpersonal and systemic microaggressions toward transgender people: Implications for counseling. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 6, 55-82; Nadal, K.L., Wong, Y., & Issa, M., et al. (2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions: Processes and coping mechanisms for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 5, 21-46; Shelton, K., & Delgado-Romero, E.A. (2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer clients in psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 210-221; Smith, L.C., Shin, R.Q., & Officer, L.M. (2012). Moving counseling forward on LGB and transgender issues: Speaking queerly on discourses and microaggressions. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 385-408; Wright, J.A., & Wegner, R.T. (2012). Homonative microaggressions and their impact on LGB individuals: A measure validity study. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 6, 34-54.

7.

Blank, R., & Slipp, S. (1994). Voices of diversity.

New York: AMACON; Deitch et al. (2003). Subtle yet significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial

discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 56(11), 12991324; Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S. L., Kawakami, K., & Hodson, G. (2002). Why can’t we all just get along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 88-102; Gore, B. (2000). The Lesbian and Gay workplace. In B. Greene & G.L. Croom (Eds.), Education, Research, and Practice in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Psychology (pp. 282-302). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Hinton, E.L. (March/April 2004). Microinequities: When small slights lead to huge problems in the workplace. Diversity Inc.; Purdie-Vaughns, V., Davis, P.G., Steele, C.M., & Ditlmann, R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 615-630; Rowe, M.P. (1990). Barriers to equality: The power of subtle discrimination to maintain unequal opportunity. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 3, 153-163; Sue, D.W., Lin, A.I., & Rivera, D.P. (2009). Racial microaggressions in the workplace: Manifestation and impact.

In J. Chin (Ed.), Diversity in Mind and in Action (pp. 157-172).

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Andersson, L.M., & Pearson, C.M. (1999). Tit for tat?

8.

The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 457.

Porath, C. & Pearson, C. (2009). The Cost of Bad 9.

Behavior. New York: The Penguin Group.

Barron, L. G., & Michelle Hebl (2011). Sexual 10. orientation: A protected and unprotected class. In M. A. Paludi, C. A. Paludi, M. A., Paludi, Jr., C. A., & DeSouza, E. (2011).

Praeger Handbook on Understanding and Preventing Workplace Discrimination. Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger. p. 259 Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2014) 11.

“Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, September 24, 1-32 Ibid.; Bunk, J. A., & Magley, V. J. (2013). The role 12. of appraisals and emotions in understanding experiences of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 87 – 105.; Adams, G. A., & Webster, J. R. (2013). Emotional regulation as a mediator between interpersonal mistreatment and Distress. European Journal of Work and Occupational Psychology, 22, 697 – 710; Kern, J. H. & Grandey, A. A. (2009).

Customer incivility as a social stressor.: The role of race and racial identity for service employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 46 – 57.; Sliter, M., Jex, S., Wolford, K., & McInnerney, J. (2010) How rude! Emotional labor as a mediator between customer incivility and employee outcomes.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 468 – 481; Lim, S., & Lee, A. (2011) Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: Does family support help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 95 – 111; Kim, T.-Y. & Shapiro, D. (2008).

Revenge against supervisor mistreatment: Negative emotion, group membership, and cross-cultural difference. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19, 339 – 358.; Sakurai, K., & Jex, S. M. (2012). Coworker incivility and incivility targets’ work effort and counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating role of supervisor social support. Journal of Occupational Health

25

Psychology, 17, 150 – 161.

13.

Lim, V. & Teo, T. S. (2009). Mind your e-manners: Impact of cyber incivility on employees’ work attitude and behavior. Information & Management, 46, 419 – 425.

14.

Sakurai, K., & Jex, S. M. (2012). Coworker incivility and incivility targets’ work effort and counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating role of supervisor social support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 150 – 161.

15.

Bunk, J. A., & Magley, V. J. (2013). The role of appraisals and emotions in understanding experiences of workplace incivility.

16.

Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H. & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivilty in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational health Psychology, 6, 64 – 80; Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005).

Interpersonal mistreatment in th workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 483 – 496; Lim, S., Cortina, L. M. & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivillty: Impact on work and health outcomes.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95 – 107; MinerRubino, K., & Reed, W. D. (2010). Testing a moderated meditational model of workgroup incivility: The roles of organizational trust and group regard. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(12), 3184 - 3168; Wilson, N. L., & Holmvall, C. M. (2013). The development and validation of the Incivility from Customers Scale. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 310 – 326.

King, E., Hebl, M., George, J., & Matusik, 17.

S. (2006) Understanding tokenism: Antecedents and consequences of psychological climate for gender inequity.

Presented at Perceptions of discrimination at work: Prevalence, correlates and consequences, a symposium at Society of Industrial Organizational Psychologists Conference. Dallas, TX. Cited in Barron, L. G., & Michelle Hebl (2011). Sexual orientation: A protected and unprotected class. In M. A. Paludi, C. A. Paludi, M. A., Paludi, Jr., C. A., & DeSouza, E. (2011). Praeger Handbook on Understanding and Preventing Workplace Discrimination. Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger Mallory, C. & Sears, B. (2015) Employment 18.

Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Florida. The Williams Institute.

19.

Gates, G. J. (2014) “Same-sex Couples in Florida: A demographic summary.” The Williams Institute. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/ uploads/FL-same-sex-couples-demo-dec-2014.pdf.

Accessed March 20, 2015.

20.

Mallory, C. & Sears, B. (2015) Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Florida. The Williams Institute.

21.

Pew Research Report. (2013) A survey of LGBT Americans. Online: http://www.pewsocialtrends.

26

www.Thinkspot.co

org/2013/06/13/a-survey-of-lgbt-americans/. Accessed February 19, 2015.

22.

General Social Survey. NORC at the University of Chicago. http://www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/generalsocial-survey.aspx Accessed March 2, 2015.

23.

Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., & Keisling, M. (2011) Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/ reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf Accessed February 24, 2015.

24.

Center for American Progress & Movement Advancement Project. (November 2014). Paying an Unfair Price: The Financial Penalty for Being LGBT in America. http://www.lgbtmap.org/file/ paying-an-unfair-price-full-report.pdf Accessed February 19, 2015.

Ibid.

25.

26.

Ibid.

27.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Agrawal, S. & Plowman, S. (2013). “The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes.” Meta-Analysis.

Bersin, J. (June 13, 2012) New research unlock the 28. secret of employee recognition. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ joshbersin/2012/06/13/new-research-unlocks-the-secret-ofemployee-recognition/ Kowske, B. (2012), Employee Engagement: Market 29.

Review, Buyer’s Guide and Provider Profiles. Bersin & Associates.

Fides, D., & Cooper, L. (2014). The Cost of the Closet 30. and the Rewards of Inclusion. Human Rights Campaign Foundation, p. 22. http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com// files/assets/resources/Cost_of_the_Closet_May2014.pdf Porath, C. & Pearson, C. (2009). The Cost of Bad 31.

Behavior. New York: The Penguin Group.; Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (January/February 2013) “The Price of Incivility: Lack of respect hurts morale—and the bottom line.” Harvard Business Review, 115-21. https://hbr.org/2013/01/the-price-of-incivility/ Accessed February 19, 2015.

32.

Mallory, C. & Sears, B. (2015). Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Florida. The Williams Institute.

33.

Fides, D., & Cooper, L. (2014). The Cost of the Closet and the Rewards of Inclusion. Human Rights Campaign Foundation.

34.

Stewart, W. F., Ricci, J. A., Chee, E., Hahn, S. R., & Morganstein, D. (2003) Cost of lost productive work time among US workers with depression. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 23. p 3135 – 3144.

35.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www. cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/implementation/topics/ depression.html Accessed March 7, 2015.

36.

Boushey, H. & Glynn, S. J., (2012). There are significant business costs to replacing employees. https:// www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ CostofTurnover.pdf Accessed March 5, 2015.

37.

Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (January/February 2013) “The

Prepared for Equality Means Business

by Thinkspot Inc.

The Link Between Economic Competitiveness and Workplace Equal Opportunity in Florida

Price of Incivility: Lack of respect hurts morale—and the bottom line.” Harvard Business Review, 115-21.

38.

Methods and Indicators to Measure the CostEffectiveness of Diversity Policies in Enterprises. (2003) Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services, p. 32 – 63. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/mars/source/ resources/references/others/17%20-%20Costs%20 and%20Benefits%20of%20Diversity%20-%20EU%20 2003%20Final%20Report.pdf Accessed February 20, 2015.

39.

Human Rights Campaign. (2015) Corporate Equality Index 2015. http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/ corporate-equality-index Accessed February 21, 2015.

40.

Human Rights Campaign and Equality Federation Institute (2014) Municipal Equality Index.

P. 51-52. http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/municipalequality-index Accessed February 21, 2015.

Hasenbush, A. Flores, A. R. Kastanis, A., Sears, B. 41. & Gates, G. (2014). The LGBT Divide: A Data Portrait of LGBT People in the Midwestern, Mountain and Southern States. p. 22. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/LGBT-divide-Dec-2014.pdf Accessed February 23, 2015.

Mallory, C. & Sears, B. (2015). Employment 42.

Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Florida. The Williams Institute.

Ibid. Citing data from Evaluations of 43.

Government and Society Study, Survey 3 (2011) and Survey 4 (2012) and Pew Research Center Poll (2013).

2014 Florida Tax Handbook. Florida 44.

Revenue Estimating Conference. p. 33. http://edr. state.fl.us/Content/revenues/reports/tax-handbook/ taxhandbook2014.pdf Accessed March 1, 2015.

Klawitter, M. M. & Flatt, V. (1998). “The Effects 45. of State and Local Antidiscrimination Policies on Earnings for Gays and Lesbians.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17(4): 658-686.

46.

Baumle, Amanda K., and Dudley L. Poston, Jr. 2011. “The Economic Cost of Homosexuality: Multilevel Analyses.” Social Forces 89(3): 1005–31 47.

Klawitter, Marieka. 2011. “Multilevel Analysis of the Effects of Antidiscrimination Policies on Earnings

by Sexual Orientation.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 30(2): 334–58 48.

Klawitter, Marieka. “Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Sexual Orientation on Earnings.” Industrial Relations 54, no. 1 (January 2015): 4-32.

49.

Burstein, p. (1985). Discrimination, jobs, and politics: The struggle for equal opportunity in the United States since the New Deal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.; Donohue, J. J., III, & Heckman, J. (1991).

Continuous versus episodic change: The impact of civil rights policy on the economic status of Blacks. Journal of Economic Literature, 29, 1603 – 1643.

Gunderson, M. (1989). Male-female wage differentials 50. and policy responses. Journal of Economic Literature, 27, 46 – 72.

51.

Landes, W. M. (1968). The economics of air employment laws. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 507 – 552.

52.

Rubenstein, W. B. (2002). Do gay rights laws matter? An empirical assessment. Southern California Law Review, 75, 65 – 119 53.

Mallory, C. & Sears, B. (2015). Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Florida. The Williams Institute.

54.

Zimring, F., & Hawkins, G. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

55.

Paludi, M. A., Paludi, and DeSouza, E. (2011).

Praeger Handbook on Understanding and Preventing Workplace Discrimination. Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1995). Justice, liability, 56. and blame: Community views and the criminal law. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Stangor, C., Sechrist, G. B., & Jost, JU. T., (2001).

57.

Changing racial beliefs by providing consensus information.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 486 – 496; Wittenbrink, B., & Henly, J. R. (1996). Creating social reality: Informational social influence and content of stereotypic beliefs.

Personality and Psychology Bulletin, 22, 598 – 610.

Blanchard F. A., Lilly, T. & Vaughn, L. A. (1991). Reducing 58. the expression of racial prejudice. Psychological Science, 2, 111 – 115; Blanchard, F. A., Crandall, C. S., Brigham, J. C., & Vaught, L. A. (1994). Condemning and condoning racism: A social context approach to interracial settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 993 – 997; Monteith, M. J., Deneen, N. E., & Tooman G. D. (1996) The effect of social norm activation on the expression of opinions concerning gay men and blacks. Basic and Applied Psychology. 86, 1244 – 1261; Zitek, E. M., & Hebl, M. R. (2007).

The role of social norm clarity in the influenced expression of prejudice over time. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 867 – 876.

Barron, L. G. (2009). Sexual orientation employment 59. anti-discrimination legislation and hiring discrimination and prejudice. In G. T. Solomon (Ed.) Proceedings of the Sixty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA [CD: ISSN 1543-8643] 60.

Button, S. B. (2001) Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level examination. Journal of Applied Pychology, 86, 17 – 28; Griffith, K. & Hebl, M. (2002) Acknowledgement of sexual orientation in the workpace. Rice University. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1191 – 1199; Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244 – 1261.

27

Equality Means Business Advisory Board

The transformation to economic progress.

Developed for Equality Means Business by Thinkspot Inc. 113 S. Monroe Street, Tallahassee FL 32301 â– www.Thinkspot.co

www.Thinkspot.co