Originally published here.

Over the last three decades, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) activism has resultedin improved employment rights and increasing visibility for LGBT people in most developedeconomies (Colgan and McKearney, 2012). A more inclusive climate for LGBT people emerged inthe UK post-1997 following the election of a Labour Government which introduced theEmployment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (2003) and the Gender Recognition Act(2004). Research has indicated that these and subsequent UK equality legislation whilst not apanacea have provided an important trigger to changing social attitudes, and empowering LGBTpeople to feel able to challenge discrimination at work and in society (Whittle et al. 2007;Stonewall, 2012).Unfortunately there is still a lack of official data on the UK LGBT population (Mitchell etal, 2008), thus it is fortunate that there are a growing number of studies rendering LGBT peopleand their experiences at work visible. These include case studies focusing on specific organisationsor sectors (Burke, 1993; Ward, 2008; Colgan et al. 2006; Rumens and Broomfield, 2012).

Research has also begun to focus within the acronym LGBT in order to explore the diverse organisationalexperiences of lesbians, gay men and bisexual and trans* people (Dunne, 1997, McDermott, 2006;Roberts, 2011; Hines, 2010; Monro, 2005). This is a useful development as it recognises that LGBTpeople are not a homogeneous group. Underlying the strategic political use of the term LGBT arelong-standing historical tensions plus different concerns and experiences (Richardson and Monro,1812012). Recent UK studies have sought to address this diversity through the adoption of queertheory focusing on how genders and sexualities may be performed and experienced at work(Browne and Nash, 2010; Rumens, 2012; Williams and Guiffre, 2011).Intersectionality has offered another influential approach to analysing diversity, allowingthe exploration of the experiences of LGBT people, taking account of factors such as age, class,disability, religion and spirituality (Beckett, 2004; Casey et al. 2010; Taylor et al, 2011; Wright,2013). It rejects treating gender, race, sexual orientation, disability and other strands as separate andessentialist categories, emphasising the need instead to focus on the ways ‘dimensions of difference inter sect to create new and distinct social cultural, artistic and political forms’ (Dill et al.2001: 4).

For advocates of this approach it has been important to move away from an additive approach(Crenshaw et. al. 1994; Yuval-Davis, 2006; McCall, 2005) so as to analyse the intersection ofsexual orientation and gender identity and other factors in men’s and women’s lives both in framing identity, their experience of hierarchical power systems and the politics of personal interactionswithin specific social, historical and cultural locations. Adib and Guerrier (2003: 416) suggest thatintersectionality is useful in allowing the empirical examination of how the crossover with a rangeof dimensions of diversity is articulated in specific workplaces. Acker (2000: 202) points to thevalue of acknowledging the views of different organisational participants by dimensions such asgender, race and class in order to make visible the ‘normal violence’ of organisational life and assist in identifying discriminatory behaviour and practices within it.Given the emerging literature on LGBT people and their diverse experiences at work, it is ofconcern to note that a research review by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (Mitchell etal., 2008) found that there were few UK studies addressing the employment experiences of disabledLGBT people and none which specifically focused on LGBT people from black and minority ethnic(BME) communities. The EHRC research review found that the intersection of disability withsexual orientation was one of the most under-researched areas in the literature. Most discussion ofLGBT people with a disability was in the context of the access to health and social care (Mitchell et 182al., 2008), whereas studies concerned with the experiences of BME LGBT people have primarilyfocussed on health and cultural/family dynamics, homophobic hate crime and social exclusion(Keogh et al, 2004; Mitchell et al. 2008).Only one major UK study provides a focus on the employment experiences of LGB BMEand LGB people with disabilities (Colgan et al, 2006). Aside from this academic study the extantUK research mostly focuses on LGB rather than LGBT experiences and is found within thepractitioner domain. Molloy et al. (2003: 98) found that disabled LGB respondents had chosen toonly seek work with public or voluntary sector employers they perceived to be ‘enlightened’ or had chosen not to disclose their sexuality at work. Another theme within the literature is the isolation and ‘double exclusion’ that LGB people with disabilities may experience, encounteringdiscrimination from heterosexual people on grounds of their sexual orientation and from within theLGB community on grounds of their disability (Brothers, 2000). The Safra Project (2003) identifieda range of difficulties facing Muslim, BME women who identified as LBT and argued the need forworkplaces to be all-inclusive, not allowing LGBT issues to be compromised ‘in the name of cultural sensitivity or respect for religion, whilst also not tolerating Islamaphobia (2003: 25). Morerecently Stonewall and the Runnymede Trust produced a report focusing on the experiences of LGBpeople from BME backgrounds. The research estimated that over 400,000 of the UK LGBpopulation are BME from ‘Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Black Caribbean and a whole host of otheridentities’ (Guasp and Kibirige, 2013: 1). A key finding was that many of the participants agreedthat they had felt marginalised and isolated by the general lack of recognition of LGB BME peoplein the UK. The report concluded that organisations needed to recognise that people belong to morethan one identity and it cautioned against creating a perceived hierarchy between different identities(Guasp and Kibirige, 2013).In light of the above concerns, this chapter sets out to address the research gap identified inthe UK LGBT employment literature by beginning to make visible the experiences of BME anddisabled LGBT people at work. In doing so it recognises the need for UK research to consider the ways in which LGBT identities intersect with other forms of identity such as disability and ethnicity(Richardson and Monro, 2012), and acknowledges that LGBT research has not always succeeded inbeing sufficiently inclusive of all sections of the LGBT population (Humphrey, 1998; McManus,2003). It uses the insights gained from the exploration of intersectionality ‘as a lived experience’ (Taylor et al. 2011: 4), to enhance our understanding of organisational life (Acker, 2000). Thechapter will first introduce the UK public policy context and the research study before moving on toconsider the empirical findings

You can read the complete article here.