Man deemed eligible for workplace compensation after sexual orientation outed by boss

Despite the man also saying that he wanted to inform his colleagues at a timing of his choice, his boss immediately told a female employee without his consent

The boss just want to make small talk with female employee with new office gossip.

I've admitted to some coworkers that I'm married, and then they casually mention that to other people without my consent or consideration of my privacy.

Gossipers need to keep their mouths shut.

Say nothing you don't want others to know.

OK, he was deemed eligible for compensation. But, will he actually get it? Also, what was his orientation? There are so many these days and it is an important point so readers can avoid psychologically damaging such people. Hopefully, the money will make him feel normal again.

Also, what was his orientation?

He was disclosed to be gay against his will. Learn to read.

There are so many these days

This is about his sexual orientation, not about his gender.

Total abuse of power by the boss. Although a different issue, the woman, knowing this information, should not have discriminated against the man and talked to him as like any other person in the office.

“I've admitted to some coworkers that I'm married, and then they casually mention that to other people without my consent or consideration of my privacy.”

Is being married something you have to hide from the public ? Or were you trying to pick up someone pretending to be single?

Good for the man.

He was compensated.

Good for his boss.

He had to compensate.

I've admitted to some coworkers that I'm married, and then they casually mention that to other people without my consent or consideration of my privacy.

First off it's no secret, your admin knows your marriage status. 2ndly if you told coworkers yourself, look in the mirror as you are the only one to blame!

You lost any "privacy" by opening your own mouth!

Gossipers need to keep their mouths shut.

Look in the mirror!

and disclosed he was gay to his boss during the interview.

Why on earth would you even bring this up, especially during the interview? This is his private life and completely irrelevant to his job...

As pointed out by someone else, either you want to keep it private and you don't tell it to anyone, or you just tell people and that's it....He put himself in this situation himself...

He put himself in this situation himself...

The courts disagree with you. Did they get the law wrong?

wallaceToday 07:19 am JST

Say nothing you don't want others to know

Yup. It's a secret if only you know.

In the realm of job hunting worldwide, a significant number of candidates identify as heterosexual, yet many opt not to disclose their sexual orientation to Human Resources Departments during the application process. This choice may stem from various reasons, including a desire to be evaluated solely on their qualifications and skills, concerns about potential bias or discrimination, and the wish to avoid being stereotyped based on their identity. It is essential to understand that this decision does not imply shame or denial of one's sexual orientation but rather reflects a complex interplay of societal norms and the aspiration for a fair and unbiased application process. From the HR perspective, the focus remains on evaluating applicants based on their professional competencies, fostering inclusivity, and providing equal treatment to all candidates, irrespective of their sexual orientation, to create diverse and innovative work environments.

In the realm of job hunting worldwide, a significant number of candidates identify as heterosexual

Get outta here! Really?

Man deemed eligible for workplace compensation after sexual orientation outed by boss

So much for Pride.

Why is so so ashamed of his gayness?

The compensation will be minimal, so this will be a point of principal thing and not driven by money. Litigation in Japan is almost always about being proven right, not about cashing in.

Say nothing you don't want others to know.

Good advice.

But he outed himself beforehand, otherwise the boss couldn’t have known (except the boss is the partner of course). Seems to be strange, to demand or to receive money for that, as he started publishing himself one way or another.

But he outed himself beforehand

That doesn't give the boss the right to out him. Under the 2019 revised Act on Comprehensive Promotion of Labor Policies, outing someone else constitutes an illegal abuse of power in the workplace ("power harrassment" aka パワハラ).

I'm curious what is behind "mental issues that resulted from being ignored by the woman"??

Terms real need to be defined.

This fellow’s sexual preference was shared by his boss, not his sexual orientation. (Nature and reason inform us that we are all oriented toward a reproductive coupling. Anything else is preference.)

And what does being “gay” mean? Having same-sex attraction but not acting upon it? Having same-sex attraction and rarely acting upon it? Or living the gay lifestyle?

As long as these terms do not relate to specific realities, people will continue speaking past one another.

I am a gay woman and I do not care one bit who knows it, but I do not shout it about because it only concerns me. And altho I have a girlfriend we are both asexual, and we were lucky to find each other. I was teased and bullied at school, usually by boys, but my answer to all of them was the usual one fingered salute.

The city of Kunitachi, which hosts the university, and some other local authorities have since implemented ordinances that specifically ban the outing of sexual minorities…

”Sexual minorities” is also a term so wide in meaning that it becomes practically useless in conversation. Sexual minorities includes anyone with a sexual fetish. It includes rapists (unless you are an activist that views every reproductive act as a rape). It includes pedophiles.

And on and on.

Like feminism, this case represents the schizophrenic attitudes of gay advocates, where they kind of want to be equals and be protected (thus not equals) at the same time. From an "equal" perspective, heterosexuals are outed by default, and following this any homosexual who demands his preference to be treated as an equal should be ready to do the same. But that's not what happens.

Mr KiplingToday 09:45 am JST

Why is so so ashamed of his gayness?

He isn't ashamed. People stay in the closet because there is so much discrimination, which leads to all kinds of abuse, including lying, name-calling, and mistreatment. And it looks like he was right, because his co-worker immediately began to discriminate against him.

Hope that answer cleared things up for you.

Kazuaki ShimazakiToday 12:02 pm JST

Like feminism, this case represents the schizophrenic attitudes of gay advocates, where they kind of want to be equals and be protected (thus not equals) at the same time.

From an "equal" perspective, heterosexuals are outed by default, and following this any homosexual who demands his preference to be treated as an equal should be ready to do the same. But that's not what happens.

Being treated as an equal includes not being discriminated against.

Like feminism, this case represents the schizophrenic attitudes of gay advocates, where they kind of want to be equals and be protected (thus not equals) at the same time.

That argument does not hold as long as there is discrimination, there is nothing schizophrenic about asking for discrimination based on sexual preference to be abolished and to be protected from it while is still rampant as it happens in Japan.

From an "equal" perspective, heterosexuals are outed by default, and following this any homosexual who demands his preference to be treated as an equal should be ready to do the same. 

No, for the preferences to be treated as equal that would mean that heterosexuals could also demand not to be outed in the same way. The difference is that for most cases there is no discrimination associated with being heterosexual, so being outed as one do not (usually) represents a problem.

Being treated as non-HIV-infected by default would not negate in any way the right of those that are to keep this as a private matter not divulged by others.

From an "equal" perspective, heterosexuals are outed by default, and following this any homosexual who demands his preference to be treated as an equal should be ready to do the same. But that's not what happens

Talk about an argument full of holes.

We still live in a society which has large number of people bigoted towards gay people. In some cases, they are told not to accept gay people as part of a package they have been sold. They lack the intelligence to think for themselves.

Their numbers are shrinking, and will continue to do so, but we aren't at a level where they have become so small to be insignificant.

Give it time.

I thought these kind of people were Proud. Rainbows flying, etc. He obviously wasn’t. So is it something to be proud of or not?

So is it something to be proud of or not?

That's for the individual to decide, not for other people to impose. This is about agency, not about the disambiguation of terms or a harmonisation of perception.

Girl in Tokyo....

He isn't ashamed. People stay in the closet because there is so much discrimination, which leads to all kinds of abuse, including lying, name-calling, and mistreatment. And it looks like he was right, because his co-worker immediately began to discriminate against him.

Hope that answer cleared things up for you.

Not really, familiarity is the best way to end discrimination. The more Gays people meet and interact with, the less likely people are to see them as outsiders and accept them. It did with me anyway. The guy in this story is just reinforcing the "drama queen" stereotype.

Mr KiplingToday 12:43 pm JST

Not really, familiarity is the best way to end discrimination. The more Gays people meet and interact with, the less likely people are to see them as outsiders and accept them. It did with me anyway. The guy in this story is just reinforcing the "drama queen" stereotype.

No. The best way to end discrimination is for people not to be bigots. It's not hard to not be a bigot. It's only hard when people make the active decision to be a terrible human being and foist their horrible behavior onto others.

Also, it's not up to gay people to do this. It's not our job to make people treat us like human beings.

Just don't out people, or divulge other highly personal info, without that person's consent. It's quite simple, and it doesn't only apply to sexual orientation.

WandoraToday 12:30 pm JST

I thought these kind of people were Proud.

"these" as if all LGBTQIA are the same?

And there is a difference between being proud and being afraid of discrimination.

How much compensation is he entitled to?

How much compensation is he entitled to?

If I understand this and other (Japanese) news articles correctly, this has been deemed a "workplace injury" and he's entitled to compensation under the worker's accident compensation insurance: medical benefits, lost wage benefit, compensation pension. That kind of stuff.

So kinda like a gay schrodinger cat: you can't be both gay and not gay at the same tine. Since he outed himself to his boss then he's essentially out already. So how can he try to claim work stress?

Im sure if my boss told a co worker im straight no one would bat an eye....

Depends doesn't it ? Maybe your straightness is limited to hugely overweight grandmothers. Would you be happy everyone knew that ?

girl_in_tokyoToday 02:01 pm JST

No. The best way to end discrimination is for people not to be bigots. It's not hard to not be a bigot. It's only hard when people make the active decision to be a terrible human being and foist their horrible behavior onto others.

You do realize that could be an argument for outing him. One cannot decide whether or not to be a bigot if they don't even know about someone's membership in whatever-minority-demographic.

According to the organization, the man started working at an insurance agency in Tokyo's Toshima Ward in 2019, and disclosed he was gay to his boss during the interview.

I haven't had an interview for at least 15 years. Is this a new thing? Seems an odd question unless the applicant brought it up himself. If this was the case, why?

Why did he beed to say his sexual orientation during interview to his boss? Nobody says that.

Sexual orientation, NOT the type I am attracted to

But as @Jeremiah elucidated in a comment above, by natural law of nature gayityness is not a sexual orientation, it's a preference.

It's okay if it's just one person, right?

There used to be a serious joke at the company I worked at in Osaka that if there was important information to be given to all staff members, rather than an official announcement, the most efficient way was to tell a single staff member and tell them not to tell anyone else. Everyone would know within an hour or two.

So ¥5 million, ¥10 million? Most important of the answers to the essential questions is missing: HOW MUCH?

HOW MUCH?

This wasn't a court case where he was awarded damages. The Labor Standards Office found that he suffered injury and is entitled to benefits from the Worker's Accident Compensation Insurance (労働者災害補償保険).

Kazuaki ShimazakiJuly 25 03:31 pm JST

You do realize that could be an argument for outing him. One cannot decide whether or not to be a bigot if they don't even know about someone's membership in whatever-minority-demographic.

Sorry, but what do you mean by this? There is no good argument for outing someone. None.

nakanoguy01July 25 03:27 pm JST

So kinda like a gay schrodinger cat: you can't be both gay and not gay at the same tine. Since he outed himself to his boss then he's essentially out already. So how can he try to claim work stress?

I'm sure he's also out to his boyfriend and friends - does that mean everyone around him also has the right to know? Or do people have the right to keep some kinds of personal information personal, and telling ONE person doesn't mean that everyone has the right to know.

I'm pretty sure you tell people things and expect them to keep it private, and would be shocked if that person spread it around and then said, "But you told me, and now it's out in the open, so ... "

JohnJuly 25 03:52 pm JST

Why did he beed to say his sexual orientation during interview to his boss? Nobody says that.

Why does it even matter what his reasons were? Do you think that fact changes anything about or makes what the boss did somehow justified?

Roy SophveasonJuly 25 04:10 pm JST

But as @Jeremiah elucidated in a comment above, by natural law of nature gayityness is not a sexual orientation, it's a preference.

I honestly thought this old turd of an argument was well and truly dead, considering that it's the kind of thing people were spouting back in the 60's in that era of ignorance before homosexuality was taken out of the DSM forever and science proved that well, some people are just gay.

It's always been an orientation. Being gay is as natural as being straight.

How can a country like Japan be so 21st Century is some areas yet so 19th Century in others.

leo TToday 02:19 pm JST

LOL COMPLETLY false

eye roll

Why would a persons' sexual orientation come up during a job interview anyway? I wonder what that conversation was like.

Why would a persons' sexual orientation come up during a job interview anyway?

Maybe it came up that the boss was also LGBTQ, so the applicant admitted they are as well, yet is choosing not to out their old boss because it's the wrong thing to do because of ethics.

I've admitted to some coworkers that I'm married, and then they casually mention that to other people without my consent or consideration of my privacy.

Are you insinuating that any conversation about another party should be illegal without that party's explicit, written consent?

Are you insinuating that any conversation about another party should be illegal without that party's explicit, written consent?

There's no need for insinuations; Under current law, in the workplace, an intrusion into private matters is an illegal infringement. If done from a position of power, e.g. a superior, it also constitutes power harrassment.

Cf.: 改正労働施策総合推進法, パワハラ防止法

girl_in_tokyoJuly 26 06:39 am JST

Sorry, but what do you mean by this? There is no good argument for outing someone. None.

I am saying that heterosexuals are outed from the start simply because they are the majority and default. You are a woman. If you walk into a room, everyone will see that you are a woman and conclude if you date with or approach anyone it'd be a man. Trying to block this automatic heuristic is like fighting the sea. In that sense, you are outed from the start. From that perspective, letting everyone know homosexual man will be approaching or trying to date males is only evening out the playing field.

I am saying that heterosexuals are outed from the start simply because they are the majority and default. You are a woman. If you walk into a room, everyone will see that you are a woman and conclude if you date with or approach anyone it'd be a man.

What if their conclusion is wrong, and she has no interest in men whatsoever?

Kinda ruins the rest of your argument, doesn't it.

StrangerlandToday 12:31 pm JST

What if their conclusion is wrong, and she has no interest in men whatsoever?

Given the actual ratio between heterosexuals and LGBTs, the probability of hit is something like 95%, which is rather good for a heuristic. Plus it's guaranteed to hit all the heterosexuals in the room, and I don't see how a 5% chance of being wrong negates this.

The sheer one-sidedness of the statistic?

Again, how is this different from racism? What percentage of individuals is it ok to discriminate against, before it goes from making a judgement based on a one-sided statistic, to bigotry/racism?

Honest question, it clearly requires a nuanced response, because you're saying it's ok to discriminate against a certain percentage of individuals based on how they appear rather than what/who they actually are, so I need to know how many people I'm allowed to discriminate against before I'm a racist bigot.

Kazuaki ShimazakiJuly 27 12:28 pm JST

everyone will see that you are a woman and conclude if you date with or approach anyone it'd be a man.

And they would be wrong. That's why you shouldn't assume anything. I am not sure why, but heterosexuals, particularly males, just assume they are the default and that normalcy revolves around their preferences. It's a very arrogant and self-important attitude.

Again, there is no excuse for outing someone.

@girl_in_tokyoToday 07:58 am JST

And they would be wrong. That's why you shouldn't assume anything. I am not sure why, but heterosexuals, particularly males, just assume they are the default and that normalcy revolves around their preferences. It's a very arrogant and self-important attitude.

Try not to read anything and everything as a sign of potential mysogyny.

I wrote it out that way because as far as I know you are a woman.

If I believed you were a male, the sentence would have gone "everyone will see that you are a MAN and conclude if you date with or approach anyone it'd be a WOMAN."

For the other part of your response, assumptions are an inevitable part of life, simply because we don't have time to ascertain everything, ascertaining everything can be anywhere from inconvenient to personally dangerous, and also because the average human mind feels anxiety when they are aware potentially important variables have to be left as "UNKNOWN" or Blank. Interpolations and Extrapolations from limited data are a part of the human existence and contribute to mental stability.

@Strangerland July 27 12:59 pm JST

Again, how is this different from racism? What percentage of individuals is it ok to discriminate against, before it goes from making a judgement based on a one-sided statistic, to bigotry/racism?

Ah, I see, the slippery slope fallacy. What I'd say is that honestly, the line is situational, but over 80% would certainly be a safe place when that line is far enough away it is functionally out of sight.

I say the line is situational because it clearly depends on the disadvantage placed on each side. For example, over on the other thread there's a spat over banning students from a certain school (collective) based on the actions of a percentage of them. Since the disadvantage to the students (not being able to use one restaurant) is limited compared to the potential damage to the restaurant from rowdy students, it's hard to blame the restaurant for its defensive measures if even 10% of the visiting students are disruptive. For something with a greater disadvantage, the burden of proof gets higher. But if the the probability is over 50%, I really find it hard to blame taking a shortcut unless the disadvantage to one side would simply be massive (for example, no one will say 50% is good enough for a criminal conviction), which clearly is not the case here.