Navigating the workplace as an LGBTQIA+ person
Bringing your best self to work is a relatively recent idea. Among hiring managers, it’s a way of saying that personal characteristics matter in professional life. Even so, it can seem a bit of a stretch: nobody can be their best self every day for long.
A more realistic variation, also taking root in corporate culture, is the suggestion that everyone bring their “whole self” to work. A coded encouragement to be who you really are among colleagues, without fear, inhibition or self-censorship. It can sound reassuringly straightforward. This article will explore what it can mean for LGBTQIA+ people to bring their whole selves to work.
Whatever phrase a recruiter might choose, the trend recognises that - for enlightened employers - the principle that employees can be authentic, or “true to yourself”, in the workplace is worth protecting. The underlying premise is that most people will do a better job in circumstances where their professional persona reflects, or at least can co-exist comfortably with, the personal attributes of identity, race or sexual orientation.
What will you get from this article?
This article will explore what it means for a workplace to be LGBTQIA+ friendly and why it matters for career growth. While LGBTQIA+ people are protected from discrimination in the United States under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from January 2025 federal agencies have terminated affirmative action policies established over six decades in response to presidential orders. This article;
- assesses the impact on both the public and private sectors of dismantling Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs for institutions, industry and federal services.
- discusses whether or when to disclose personal information (it is a decision for each individual!) –with tips on how to find an inclusive workplace, while recognizing potential limitations.
- includes advice for LGBTQIA+ applicants on the hiring and interview process, and wider perspectives on living in “Vuca” world - an environment that is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous.
- highlights the importance of balancing potential stress from disclosure and self-censorship, against the opportunity to impress recruiters with your approach.
Understanding LGBTQIA+ friendly workplaces
In the United States, an estimated 8.1 million LGBT people over the age of 16 are active in the workforce. They are living - and working - at a contested moment in the American workplace, In the space of just a few months, from January 2025, a broad pro-diversity consensus among policymakers has been overturned.
Questions of how much to disclose, and when, about personal identity in the workplace are deeply personal decisions. Each of us is different and unique. For LGBTQIA+ people, it is equally true that hiding - or masking - their true identity is itself a tough option. You are who you are: your whole self cannot be someone else.
For job seekers, finding the right job with the right employer is more achievable with careful due diligence. The workplace culture in every organisation is a living thing, constantly evolving. Feeling comfortable in your professional persona, knowing that you are seen and heard by colleagues or managers, believing that work-related decisions and opportunities are inclusive and fair – all these are necessary conditions for diversity to thrive. Few employees anywhere can take them for granted.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion are terms derived from the discourse of affirmative action, with roots in the American civil rights movement of the mid-20th century. Over the subsequent decades, DEI evolved into an organisational framework to promote fairness, full participation, and improved representation for previously marginalised or majority groups.
Employers who embed these principles in hiring practices will be sensitive to nuances in language, management style or working processes which might deter LGBTQIA+ applicants. Even so, your authentic self may feel understandably reluctant to show up on Day 1. For many LGBTQIA+ people, the decision to share sexual orientation or gender identity with colleagues can mark a career milestone.
DEI IN RECENT YEARS
To date, the 2020s have proved to be a tough decade for DEI in the United States. Executive orders signed by President Donald J. Trump in the first days of his second administration required government departments to roll back a raft of established DEI policies.
Even so, the constitutional foundation of equal rights is unchanged. In the United States it is illegal for an employer to discriminate on grounds of sexual identity or gender. This principle, originally set out in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was reaffirmed in June 2020 by the US Supreme Court in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County. The decision extended federally mandated protection from discrimination to all employees, including LGBTQIA+ people in states with no other legal statute.
What is DEI and why it matters
Banning discrimination is different from promoting opportunities for historically marginalised groups. But for most hiring managers, statute is not the first point of departure in hiring decisions. Recruiters look for employees with the abilities and characteristics to succeed in their work.
Next to technical skills and formal qualifications, so-called soft skills such as empathy or experience in managing conflict may help business outcomes. These are faculties that many LGBTQIA+ people acquire as a consequence of their life experiences.
Prior to January 2025, DEI programs mandated efforts to nurture work environments where marginalised or under-represented groups felt visible, represented and treated fairly – in both the public and private sectors. For LGBTQIA+ employees, these included recognition of preferred names and pronouns, benefits such as gender-neutral paid parental leave, or access to all-gender restrooms.
When diversity is valued by an organisation, extensive research indicates that an inclusive culture in the workplace will reward employers with improved performance and wider opportunities for career progression from a diverse talent pool. With or without explicit commitments on DEI, most LGBTQIA+ employees welcome more inclusion. Many have spent entire careers looking for organisations where differences among employees are valued as a means to competitive advantage.
Thomas Vance, PhD, a counseling psychologist and advisor to organisations, has led research in historically underserved communities, including Black and LGBTQIA+ populations, on topics from the mental health of transgender and nonbinary people to stigma faced by individuals. He describes “three different levels” to the design and implementation of inclusive work cultures:
- First, the micro level is the job seeker: you're thinking about a disclosure decision, about self-censorship.
- The second, or meso level, is the employer: what is their compliance posture, the hiring practices or systems, the training language?
- Third, we have the macro level, which is federal contracting, incentives, agency guidance.
These three levels are all connected. They are constantly impacting each other, but there have always been pretty much the same three levels.
Understanding LGBTQIA+ rights in the workplace
In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the US Supreme Court extended Title VII protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex and gender. Despite concerns among LGBTQIA+ activists prompted by President Trump’s appointment of three new Supreme Court justices - all conservatives - during his first term, this decision remains the constitutional bedrock of workplace rights for LGBTQIA+ employees.
Laws that prohibit discrimination confer passive rather than active rights. Unlike affirmative action, they are not inherently pro-diversity. Three months after Bostock v. Clayton County, near the end of his first term, President Trump introduced measures in September 2020 to restrict “diversity training” in federal agencies and by federal contractors. Executive Order 13950, “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping", prohibited training in "divisive concepts" such as critical race theory or the idea that the U.S. is fundamentally racist or sexist. This order was later rescinded by President Biden.
By the time President Trump returned to office for a second term, hostility to DEI measures across his Make America Great Again movement had hardened. On the day of his second inauguration in January 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government". This order established a binary gender policy recognising only two sexes, male and female. As a legal concept for interpretation in federal law, “gender identity” was excluded from the definition of sex.
In the following months, most DEI initiatives in federal government and agencies have been closed down. Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 mandated termination of most DEI-related policies, programs and offices (with some notable exceptions for policies affecting US military veterans). Federal employees in DEI roles were placed on paid leave and subsequently laid off.
In tandem with the effective abolition of DEI, the Trump administration rescinded policies of affirmative action signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965. Executive Order 14173 "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," dismantled longstanding policy requiring federal contractors to implement affirmative action programs and prohibit discrimination based on race, creed, color or national origin. Legal mechanisms for compliance, monitoring and enforcement, developed over six decades, came to a stop.
Are LGBTQIA+ workplace rights federally protected?
The term ‘VUCA’ is deployed by US military strategists as shorthand for situations that are volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. “We're living in a Vuca world,” says Dr Vance, “and this impacts jobseekers and employers on the ground”. The political rhetoric against DEI, which casts pro-diversity initiatives as limiting or a form of reverse discrimination, has created a hostile environment for marginalised groups. LBTQIA+ communities have always lived in a Vuca world, observes Dr Vance: “This is home”.
The question of whether and how far LGBTQIA+ workplace rights are still federally protected has divided legal opinion. In the private sector, the impact of anti-DEI measures on business, particularly for companies reliant on federal contracts, is reflected in the scaling back or re-evaluation by employers of public commitments to DEI. Litigation is ongoing as organisations, from universities to groups representing former staff of government agencies, have challenged anti-DEI policies through the courts.
Meanwhile, the declining emphasis on DEI by employers can be seen as a rational and cautious response to the heightened risk of prosecutions by the US Department of Justice. On February 5, incoming US Attorney General Pam Bondi marked her first day in office by issuing a memorandum, ‘Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination Preferences’.
Consistent with President Trump’s executive orders, the Department of Justice, in consultation with heads of relevant federal agencies, was tasked with identifying "egregious and discriminatory" DEI programs. The Civil Rights Division and Office of Legal Policy were directed to submit a strategic enforcement plan with “proposals for up to nine potential civil compliance investigations” and “proposals for criminal investigations”.
The memo identified key sectors where prosecutors at federal and state level would recommend enforcement measures, specifically referencing industries with a history of race- or sex-conscious hiring, promotion, and contracting. “Race-conscious DEI initiatives violate federal civil rights laws and should be dismantled,” wrote Attorney General Bondi.
Which amendments and laws apply?
The list of organisations squarely in the sights of public prosecutors includes publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of $500 million or more, state and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over $1 billion.
In education, universities receiving federal funding have faced investigation of affirmative action practices in faculty hiring, student scholarships, or DEI-focused administrative positions. In business, the Department of Justice has threatened litigation against companies where hiring managers applied demographic quotas and benchmarks for under-represented groups, including race- or sex-based criteria and diversity requirements.
In an irony that may surprise jurists, law students - and perhaps even the Supreme Court judges who decided Bostock v. Clayton County - DEI programmes based on racial or sex diversity could face prosecution for civil rights violations under the same statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which previously extended equal rights to LGBTQIA+ individuals.
Government-regulated industries such as health care, with a long history of federally mandated DEI, found themselves vulnerable to prosecution. Diversity-based hiring and training programs in hospitals, medical schools, and research institutions face investigation by the DOJ to establish whether federal funding remains contingent on race- or sex-based criteria.
So too do some of the biggest employers in the tech sector, law firms and non-profits. Other potential grounds for litigation have cited the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and criminal statutes. In venture capital, for example, firms with DEI-focused investment or criteria recognising under-represented founders may be found to be operating on the wrong side of the law.
In aviation, Federal Aviation Authority programmes and private airlines face scrutiny, as officials at the Department of Justice assess whether hiring policies for pilots and leadership roles prioritize race or sex in recruitment, promotions, or subcontracting. The same charge has been applied to procurement decisions from suppliers. Contractors and recipients of federal grants are particularly vulnerable, given the long record of federal incentives for DEI in contracting policy prior to 2024.
Things you can and cannot control
In a Vuca world - volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous - much has stayed the same for LGBTQIA+ jobseekers. Dismantling DEI frameworks in the United States has been perceived by many critics as a new assault on diversity in the workplace. Supporters of these new measures insist they are “colorblind” and a corrective to the “illegal discrimination” of affirmative action and other hiring criteria.
Either way, the resilience and perseverance demanded of marginalised communities remain unchanged. LGBTQIA+ applicants need information, intel and a considered strategy to navigate the hiring and interview process. “I’m not gonna say that the skills to navigate all this just stay the same,” explains Dr Vance. “In a world of social media, AI and new technology, the individual has many means to find information and make connections.”
Federal policy, workplace compliance, company culture are all outside the control of an individual job applicant. The ability to interpret and infer whether an opportunity is worth pursuing, even with limitations, is more personal: “I will say that people - the human skills, connecting skills, the human centre - are the same. Compared to 50 years ago, we have different ways of connecting, of building community,” says Dr Vance.
The reality for most LGBTQIA+ people is that some degree of ambiguity around individual rights - whether rights at work, or deciding where to live - has long been part of daily life. These complexities can vary by geographic location, and are often complicated at the intersections between race and gender and sexuality. But they are not inherently new: “This particular community has always been navigating volatility, navigating uncertainties and complexities. It’s just living”.
Should I disclose my gender and/or sexual orientation?
If, when and how much to disclose to a prospective employer are decisions for the individual. No rule can provide a reliable guide, but these questions comprise the first of the three levels (individual, employer and macro environment) that inform Dr Vance’s analytical framework: the jobseeker is thinking about disclosure, a form of self-censorship. While that decision is personal, a careful strategy will take account of factors such as mental load on an individual and their negotiation power.
Cultivating personal resilience is another necessary skill in a job market frequently characterised by shrinking opportunities for graduates. Treat every job prospect as a learning experience. Cultivate the skills to build contacts, ask questions, and when possible to extend your personal network. Rejections can hurt, but the underlying reasons are rarely personal.
If an offer is made, create the space to reflect by asking for time to consider the terms. Employers will expect a promising recruit to negotiate. Take the opportunity to ask follow-up questions, or to follow up by talking again to people within the company. How much you can find out about its policies and practices can be a reliable indicator of an organisation’s commitment to an inclusive working environment.
The relevance of making enquiries - of listening closely, and asking questions - has not been superseded by the end of DEI. How you act on this information will be determined, ultimately, by your intuition, analysis and the accuracy of your personal antennae. Remember that even in periods when gender-based issues were less politicized, LGBTQIA+ applicants have always faced unique challenges in the jobs market. Be vigilant. Don’t rush. Make considered decisions.
How to disclose on resumes and applications?
Applications are not legal documents. You decide when to share your chosen or legal name, and with whom. But keep in mind that the application process is a conduit to legal documents, and if successful to a contract of employment. Between the application stage and accepting an offer of employment, other legal documents such as proof of identity, bank accounts, academic or professional certification, and other permits may be sought. You may be asked to travel to an interview, for example. Your passport may be required to book flights for travel.
If your chosen name is different from your legal name, be prepared to disclose when the time is right – and before you sign on the dotted line. Consider sharing your chosen name in an application, then following up by email to instruct that your legal name is added to bookings or draft contracts. Hiring managers make take a positive view of your ability to handle potentially sensitive issues in a calm and straightforward manner.
Keep in mind, too, that disclosure is a process of self-censorship while your prospective employer is watching. Ask yourself whether these decisions could create personal stress, add to your mental load or influence your negotiating position. Hiring managers may perceive how you manage disclosures related to your LGBTQIA+ identity as a positive indicator, reflecting your capacity for empathy, or potential to negotiate efficiently and sensitively. Be cautious, but confident.
Red flags to look out for when choosing a place to work
In the absence of clearly defined or published DEI goals, assessing the values and priorities of a prospective employee might seem daunting. Dr Vance draws a comparison with sustainability programmes. Many companies which talked enthusiastically about a green agenda subsequently have been accused of greenwashing. The same can be said, in some instances, of commitments to diversity.
Much like greenwashing, examples of “gender-washing” can include marketing collateral, social media channels or statements posted on company websites. Even a simple online search can help to gauge a company’s seriousness and consistency. How do these confident, intentional messages compare to published data? Look for clues. Are commitments to diversity and career progression reflected in leadership appointments? What can you find in a company’s annual report, for example (many of which include organisation charts)?
Analysis by Reed Smith, a US-based international law firm, found that officials in the Department of Justice will make a distinction between “programs, initiatives or policies that discriminate, exclude or divide individuals based on race or sex” and those that “celebrate diversity”. Events such as Black History Month or Holocaust Day fall in the latter category. Does a prospective employer celebrate these? Evasive responses may not be grounds for an LGBTQIA+ applicant to walk away, but might be considered potential red flags.
Key takeaways for navigating the workplace
No two employers are quite the same in how they choose to present themselves to outsiders, but a good rule of thumb for job seekers is to ask straightforward questions.
- What kind of corporate employee-led groups, also known as ERG or Employee Resource Groups, are active?
- Are health benefits trans-inclusive?
If the answers sound encouraging, ask for more detail. Is the positive signalling backed by useful resources, financial or otherwise? “Look at the track record,” advises Dr Vance, “talk to people and keep your own records”.
For any other job application-related question, Jobseeker has a wealth of resume and cover letter guides, and career guidance to navigate the job market itself.
Links, guidance and resources
Resources to find inclusive workplaces
- Gender Jobs
- LGBT Great Careers
- Jobs for Humanity, Jobs for the LGBTQIA+
- LGBT Map, Equality Maps
Networks, sources and advice
- Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index
- Out & Equal
- Duke Career Hub, 4 Job Search Tips for Transgender and Non-Binary People
- Pitt Career Center, Tips for Navigating the Job Search Journey as an LGBTQ individual
- Colorado State University, Pride's Guide to The Job Search and Employment
Impress potential employers with your resume
Follow step-by-step professional guidance to create a polished resume in minutes.
