This study aimed at understanding how queer employees experience South African corporate workplaces.

A frequent theme in South African literature on sexuality is the homophobic nature of African societies (Bhana et al., 2021). This is because of the belief that queer identities¹ are a foreign influence, which deviates from the indigenous African values that are closely upheld and often used to justify discrimination (Ezeador & Okpara, 2024; O’Connell et al., 2024). Indigenous African values are not understood as a monolithic reality but rather as a set of cultural, moral, social and religious norms that are commonly presented as traditional or authentically African. Moreover, conservative religious belief systems have reinforced the framing of heterosexuality as ‘normative’ and socially legitimate, thus shaping what is widely regarded as culturally acceptable (Tamale, 2011). Despite having the world’s most advanced anti-discriminatory legislative framework, South African professional spaces continue to be contexts of discrimination based on sexual and gender identity (Brown, 2024). Scholarship reaffirms that despite the robust anti-discriminatory legislative framework, queer employees experience noticeable disparities between the legal ideals of equality and the day-to-day lived realities in both the public sector and the communities at large (Tucker, 2019). This article wishes to further investigate the discrimination of queer employees, particularly in corporate workplaces.

Diversity is understood as any salient attribute that distinguishes individuals during social interaction (Ferdman, 2017; Friday & Friday, 2003). This is often classified as ‘surface-level’ diversity, which includes visible or demographic traits such as race, gender, disability, language, culture and sexuality to mention a few. The queer community represents a vital component of this category because its members frequently navigate systemic marginalisation and underrepresentation (Cech & Waidzunas, 2021); their inclusion is necessary for diversity and to challenge traditional norms, advancing equity within organisations (Shore et al., 2011). Contemporary organisations are faced with intensified levels of diversity than before. This is largely because of the evolution of societies through processes such as mass migration, same-sex legislation, ageing population, changing career patterns and shifting generational lifestyles (Post et al., 2021). These differences affect the organisation’s human resource management practices, customer expectations, investor relations and strategy formulation (Mihaylova & Rietmann, 2025). While some corporates support and recognise diversity as a powerful resource, others have been resistant to meaningful change (Galvin, 2006). Organisations that value diversity, which have committed transformational leadership, have recognised that diversity is a strong resource that can be used to create a competitive edge (Lee & Shin, 2024; Hunt et al., 2020). This article wishes to advance literature in the field by redirecting the focus onto sexuality as a social diversity category, by making sure that queer employees are visible, protected and incorporated in the daily workplace activities.

The past two decades of work conducted internationally and locally on sexuality in the workplace indicate that queer employees continue to experience discrimination one way or another with limited organisational support (Sibande & Gobind, 2025). Modern scholarship shifts our understanding of workplace discrimination from a more simplistic interpretation to a more complex and multifaceted phenomenon shaped by context-specific experiences (Oliveira et al., 2024). Building on the earlier frameworks by Chung (2001) and Cavalier (2013), research emphasises that discrimination is not experienced in a linear or clear-cut fashion; way, intention, perception and actions all matter and shape its measurement and lived reality (Diale et al., 2023; Ng & Sears, 2020). Formal overt or institutional discrimination is explained as explicit discrimination rooted in institutional policies, rules or formal decision-making processes such as discriminatory promotion policies (Human Rights Watch, 2021). Informal, subtle or interpersonal discrimination is often less overt but equally damaging and affects interpersonal dynamics within the workplace. Moreover, experiences of discrimination can span from potential or anticipated, where people adapt their behaviour out of fear or expectation of bias, to encountered or actual discrimination which can be explained as direct experiences that may have occurred because of unfair treatment (Gordon et al., 2020). Perceived discrimination may be seen as an employee’s perception of their employer’s action, in this case, based on their sexual identity, while actual discrimination is discriminatory practices directed at queer employees (Sibande & Gobind, 2025). Employees may only react (turnover intentions, withdrawal and stress) to workplace discrimination based on their interpretation of that discriminatory practice (Triana et al., 2019). Thus, the crucial distinction between perceived and actual discrimination underscores the subjectivity of experiences of discrimination and significantly impacts queer employees’ well-being and workplace engagement (Wölk et al., 2025). Nonetheless, there is a scarcity of literature that explores actual workplace discrimination against queer employees in South African corporate workplaces, particularly studies providing organisational experiences across racial groups in the corporate sector (Tshisa & Van der Walt, 2021). However, what we know from literature is that perceived workplace discrimination may arise from queer employees experiencing differential treatment in terms of fair treatment when compared to their heterosexual counterparts, especially if their sexual identity is known (Fric, 2019). In the process of this study, it has been observed that some of the work done in the field is on the significance of the anticipated fear of discrimination of a sexual identity once it has been revealed in the workplace. This is because of the societal stigma attached to being queer. In the early work conducted by Goffman (1963), he repeatedly refers to queer employees as a ‘stigmatised group’ in the United States around the 1960s, when being queer was criminal and considered a psychiatric disorder (Kaplan, 2014). Similarly, in South Africa under the apartheid rule, being queer was criminal and punishable by imprisonment (Matetoa-Mohapi, 2021). According to Sears et al. (2021), discrimination at work and other labour market discriminations are the most prevalent type of discrimination experienced by many queer employees and job seekers, not only in South Africa but globally as well. Such discrimination may be both overt acts of bias (Sartore & Cunningham, 2009) and subtle and insidious (Newman et al., 2025) and affect the entire employment cycle in hiring, promotions, firing and regarding salary ranges when compared to their heterosexual colleagues. Discrimination in the workplace not only has economic disadvantages to queer employees but also impacts their psychological well-being, often making it difficult for them to advance in their careers (Ubisi et al., 2023).

Drawing from the aforementioned discussion, it is evident that discrimination is multifaceted. Queer employees experience multiple, intersecting forms of discrimination and stigma. These can include formal or virulent homophobia that manifests itself through prejudicial behaviour, treatment or practices, including being overlooked for hiring and promotion processes, being fired because of sexual orientation, a lack of access and distribution of resources or sabotaging of work and lower pay rates (Badgett et al., 2013). As a result, some queer employees, as a matter of necessity, remain ‘closeted’ because of the prevailing negative organisational and cultural factors (Tshisa & Van der Walt, 2021).

To guide the analysis of this study and to effectively capture the complexities of the workplace experiences of queer employees, two theories were used, namely Queer theory and the gendered organisations theory. However, before discussing the theoretical framework, it is necessary to clarify how the term ‘queer’ is used.

For the purpose of this article, the term ‘queer’ is utilised in two ways: firstly, as a theoretical lens using queer theory and secondly, as an inclusive umbrella category to encompass the diverse range of non-heterosexual identities represented by the participants, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and pansexual individuals. While remaining attentive to the distinct factors that shape the unique lived experiences and forms of marginalisation, the author adopts ‘queer’ both for its economy of language and its political utility. By grouping these identities under one term, this article emphasises a shared positionality of ‘otherness’ in relation to dominant heteronormative structures (Jagose, 1996; McCann & Monaghan, 2019). In addition, the term ‘queer’ has been reclaimed to align with contemporary South African discourse, which uses ‘queer’ to challenge binary classifications and address the intersectional nature of sexual and gender diversity (Msibi, 2011).

Queer theory was first introduced by Teresa de Lauretis and later developed by Judith Butler, Eve Sedgwick and David Halperin. In this study, queer theory provides a crucial foundation for understanding and centring queer experiences in corporate workplaces by challenging heteronormative systems, which keep in check the ‘normative’ relations of sex and gender binaries (Corlett et al., 2023). This theory helped to interrogate how workplaces, which are subsections of society, characterise certain behaviours to ‘other’ queer identities in the most subtle or institutionalised ways (Lee & Shin, 2024). Consequently, queer theory is well-suited for this study as it elevates the real voices from personal experiences of employees, which is also important for qualitative work. It also explains how subtle discrimination is woven into organisational culture and language.

Drawing from this foundation, the theory of gendered organisations is used to explain how workplaces are inherently gendered through their processes, policies and practices that reproduce gender ‘norms’ and power dynamics. Joan Acker first coined this theory in the 1990s to show how the distribution of power in workplaces is exercised through organisational logic and perpetuates gender inequalities in the positions that employees hold in the corporate hierarchy (Bates, 2022). Such structures systematically privilege ‘normative’ gender performances, alienating those who do not adhere to these institutional expectations (Acker, 1990; Ely & Meyerson, 2000). Using this theory to understand queer experiences, it demonstrates that discrimination stems from both individual prejudices and institutional norms (Connell, 2009). These institutional norms influence the communication styles, clothing standards, organisational culture and routines, which reinforce heteronormativity while marginalising queer employees (Benschop, 2009; Browne, 2014). Ultimately, such gendered spaces also create an environment that pressures queer employees to align, often leading to subtle forms of discrimination (Acker, 2006; Schilt & Lagos, 2017).

This study was conducted in KwaZulu-Natal province, situated on the east coast of the country. The study specifically focused on queer employees employed in corporate workplaces across the province.

Ethical clearance was obtained from the University of KwaZulu-Natal Human Research Ethics Committee (HSS/1210/016D). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Participants were also assured that confidentiality and anonymity would be upheld through their responses in accordance with the Protection of Personal Information Act, 2013 (POPIA). As such, their real names were not disclosed, instead pseudonyms were assigned. To ensure emotional and psychological support for participants, appropriate measures were implemented. Participants were informed of their right to pause or withdraw at any time during the interview process. The researcher also monitored the emotional well-being of the participants during the interview process and, where necessary, referrals to support services were provided.

Inappropriate jokes and humour were used to disguise discriminatory remarks. Participants shared that some of the jokes referred to conventional gender roles and pronouns, including masculinity. Although some participants initially felt that the comments were harmless, the jokes were sarcastic and consistently repeated to portray negative attitudes towards queer identities, causing participants to interpret the acts as intentional and oppressive. For instance, Participant X indicated that her colleague addressed her as ‘sir’ even though she had made it clear that she prefers to be called ‘miss’:

Although X found that it was initially a joke, it quickly became confrontational. Participant V observed that her colleague uses inappropriate pronouns when referring to her at work. Although the comment was not to her face, it was intended for her. Jokes were also passed to make inappropriate comments about gender roles:

Participant L also shared that he was once told jokingly that it was a ‘waste’ that he was ‘gay’ because he would have made a good husband one day.

Name-calling was also identified as another type of subtle discrimination experienced by participants, which was used to marginalise queer employees. Derogatory language and labels are used to normalise and sustain stereotypes and attitudes about queer identities (Hall & LaFrance, 2012). Heterosexist language is among the most frequently used pejorative terms, accompanying other categories such as racism, sexism, and phallocentrism that continue to marginalise queer employees (Galupo & Resnick, 2016). Like jokes, name-calling is harmful and negatively impacts queer people (Davis et al., 2021). Participant K shared that he overheard customers use derogatory labels to describe people who identify as ‘bisexual’ to staff in the presence of supervisors:

Insensitive language or workplace incivility is used freely within the working environment (Page & Ngwenya, 2023). What we gather from the above is that the heterosexist names that are typically used to refer to participants were based on stereotypical misconceptions of queer identities. Participant N indicated that she is called ‘one of the stronger women’ at work:

The participants’ manager sees her as ‘mannish’ in appearance, which contributes to the ongoing discussion on gender-atypical appearance and sexual identities (Freeman et al., 2010; Paprzycka et al., 2022). Often, such cues are based on the flawed perceptions that women who self-identify as ‘lesbian’ aspire to be men or masculine because of their deviance to heterosexuality (Klysing et al., 2021).

Data also suggest that subtle discrimination is experienced through workplace exclusion where fellow heterosexual colleagues have ignored, avoided or rejected their queer counterparts. It became apparent during the interviews that the behaviours of colleagues had shifted once their queer identities became known. This is because of the stigma attached to the queer sexual identities of participants. Participant ‘I’ mentioned that he had lost a good friend because of a rumour of having a love affair at work:

This perception came because he was spending a lot of time with his friend at work, as a result, some colleagues spread false rumours of a love affair between them. Participant A also shared how being queer is perceived negatively at work. She shared that some colleagues would distance themselves from her because of her queer sexual identity:

Some will distance themselves from her because of their religious beliefs. The above comments suggest that participants who experience ostracism are physically present in the group but socially ignored by others. Although participants are physically visible to colleagues at work, they may feel socially invisible and marginalised, which can contribute to internalised homophobia, stress and depressive symptoms (Holman, 2018).

This article proposes that corporate workplaces need to prioritise creating a true and authentic culture of inclusivity and move beyond symbolic approaches. The study’s findings underscore the lack of sustained effort to attend to sexuality and gender identity, calling for more proactive and integrated diversity initiatives (Ntombela, 2020). According to Dobbin and Kalev (2016), meaningful diversity is impactful when managed as a complex, systematic and ongoing than a compliance-driven activity. It is imperative that organisations examine their human resource value chain so that they do not subtly exclude queer employees. Furthermore, in order to de-stigmatising queer identities, a comprehensive diversity policy is essential where it explicitly acknowledges sexual and gender identities so as to promote inclusive work environment (Mor Barak, 2020) Together with the structural interventions suggested, organisations should offer targeted workshops for queer employees to prepare them for the realities of the workplaces and equip them with strategies to effectively handle challenging workplace situations. Another way that diversity commitment can be meaningful is to encourage continuous learning and sensitisation initiatives that are focused on microaggressions and subtle discrimination. This is at the centre of effective organisational change.

Because this work contributes to the existing literature within a less-investigated domain in South African literature, much work remains. Limitations of the study do not undermine the value and impact of the work but rather create room for inquiry into corporate workplaces in South Africa. Firstly, this study was limited to one province. Although generalisation was not a priority in this study, it remains a limitation because the scope of the study limits the full development of the theory. There is a need to spread the study across provinces where the context is less conservative and see if the findings from this study will be replicated in other contexts. Secondly, this sample was made up of queer employees who had less than 10 years of working experience. Although this may not have been a serious challenge for the study, the information drawn from participants who had more than 10 years of experience could have been valuable, showing another perspective on how these participants managed their queer identities over time and the professional dynamics they navigated. Moreover, future research can explore whether age and years of experience can shape the workplace experiences of queer employees.