This website uses cookies.

By clicking the "Accept" button or continuing to browse our site, you agree to first-party and session-only cookies being stored on your device to enhance site navigation and analyze site performance and traffic. For more information on our use of cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

« Back to Results

Pink Papers 2: LGB Discrimination in Housing, Education, and Labor Markets

Paper Session

Saturday, Jan. 5, 2019 10:15 AM - 12:15 PM

Atlanta Marriott Marquis, M101
Hosted By: American Economic Association
  • Chair: Christopher S. Carpenter, Vanderbilt University

Sexual Orientation, Gender, Pregnancy, and Family Composition Discrimination in Mortgage Lending: Evidence from a Correspondence Field Experiment

Patrick Button
,
Tulane University, RAND Corporation, and IZA
Catherine Balfe
,
Tulane University
David Schwegman
,
Syracuse University
Mary Penn
,
Tulane University

Abstract

This paper utilizes an email correspondence experiment to test if mortgage loan originators discriminate against credit-worthy individuals based on their sexual orientation and/or their family structure. We send emails requesting information about home loans to licensed mortgage loan originators (MLOs) in the United States. The emails come from fictitious couples who are either same-sex or opposite-sex couples with and without young children, as well as heterosexual and lesbian couples expecting children. We signal for sexual orientation by including the names of both the prospective borrower and his or her spouse. In addition to signaling sexual orientation and family structure, we signal credit worthiness (through employment status, credit score, income, etc.) of each potential applicant. We test for differential treatment by MLOs by comparing response quality and response rates. We then quantify the cost of disclosing sexual orientation and/or family structure when applying for a mortgage.

Out of the Closet and into the Classroom: Differences in Human Capital Investments by Sexual Orientation

Ian Burn
,
Stockholm University
Michael E. Martell
,
Bard College

Abstract

Human capital investment differs by sexual orientation in the United States. These differences exists both along the extensive margin (years of schooling) and the intensive margin (college majors). Using data from nationally representative surveys in the United States, we first show that the differences in years of schooling exist in the ACS, the NHIS, and AddHealth. Gay men obtain between 0.6 and 1.1 more years of schooling than heterosexual men. The differences among men are robust to controlling for demographics, personality characteristics, and family backgrounds. While similar sized gaps exist for lesbian women, the gaps are not significant after controlling personality characteristics and family backgrounds. We then use data from the ACS to study how workplace characteristics and prejudice to homosexuals influence the choice of a college major. We find that gay men and lesbian women are attracted to majors with lower levels of prejudice and higher levels of independence. Conditional on prejudice and independence, the pecuniary rewards for a college major do not appear to influence their choices.

Analyzing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination for Federal Contractor and Noncontractor Firms

Lee Badgett
,
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Amanda Baumle
,
University of Houston
Steve Boutcher
,
University of Massachusetts-Amherst

Abstract

This paper will present findings of a study that assesses the impact of President Obama’s 2014 executive order forbidding federal contractors to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). We analyze data on employees’ individual charges of SOGI discrimination filed since the EEOC began interpreting SOGI discrimination as sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act from 2012-2016. We match the charge data to the EEOC’s EEO-1 of establishments to create a pooled cross-section dataset of establishments with and without charges. The EEO-1 data provide information on federal contractor receipt, race and gender composition of employment, and detailed industry. We use economic theories of discrimination and sociological theories of legal consciousness to create measures of factors that predict whether a charge is filed (dependent variable 1) and whether a charge is found to have some merit (dependent variable 2). After controlling for those measures, we look for the annual impact of being a federal contractor in the years after the policy change. Our hypotheses are that the executive order will result in a greater likelihood of a charge (based on legal consciousness theory) but a lower likelihood of a charge with merit (based on discrimination theory). Our preliminary results confirm hypothesis one, as we see an increase in filing of charges against federal contractors in the years the executive order is signed and implemented.

Explaining the Sexual Orientation Gap in Educational Attainment

Alyssa Schneebaum
,
Vienna University of Economics and Business
Marta Murray-Close
,
United States Census Bureau

Abstract

This paper uses data from three nationally representative US surveys to confirm previous findings that lesbians and gay men are more educated than heterosexual men and women and to assesses the plausibility of five potential explanations for this difference: highly educated lesbians and gay men are more likely to “come out”; sexual minorities differ demographically, earn higher wage returns to education, or have different expectations about their future partners’ income; and education is a gateway to more tolerant workplaces. The only explanation that is supported for both lesbians and gay men highlights a non-pecuniary return to schooling: access to more tolerant workplaces.
Discussant(s)
Joanna Lahey
,
Texas A&M University
Hani Mansour
,
University of Colorado-Denver
Christopher S. Carpenter
,
Vanderbilt University
Michael Mueller-Smith
,
University of Michigan
JEL Classifications
  • I2 - Education and Research Institutions
  • J1 - Demographic Economics