LGBTQ Wage Gap: What the Research Shows and What Employers Can Do

Q: Is there an LGBTQ wage gap?

Yes, but it is not the same for every group. Meta-analyses find that gay and bisexual men earn less than comparable heterosexual men, bisexual women also earn less, while lesbian women on average earn more than heterosexual women. Studies of transgender workers point to lower employment and income.

Q: How big is the pay gap for gay men?

Estimates vary by country, data set and method. Klawitter's 2015 meta-analysis is usually summarised as a penalty of around 11% compared with similar heterosexual men, and a later review reports gaps of about 4–5% in the Netherlands, France, Greece and the UK and 12–16% in Canada, Sweden and the US.

Q: Why do lesbian women earn more than heterosexual women?

Researchers link the premium mainly to work intensity and household specialisation: lesbian women are less likely to reduce hours or take career breaks around children. It does not mean lesbian women escape discrimination; women of every sexual orientation still earn less than men on average.

Q: Are LGBTQ+ workers protected against pay discrimination in the EU?

Yes. Directive 2000/78/EC bans discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in employment, explicitly including pay, and the EU Court of Justice treats discrimination linked to gender reassignment as sex discrimination. National laws implement and often extend these rules.

Q: Can employers measure the LGBTQ+ pay gap?

Only with care. Sexual orientation is special category data under the GDPR, so most employers cannot simply record it. Where lawful, voluntary and anonymous surveys with clear safeguards can complement a pay equity audit that checks pay against objective, job-related criteria.

Gay and bisexual men tend to earn less than comparable heterosexual men, and trans workers face larger penalties. Here is what the evidence really says, where it is thin, and what employers can do about it.

TalentUp Team Salary intelligence and HR analytics

19 June 2025 Updated 27 October 2026 14 min read

Also available in: Español Català Français Deutsch Italiano Português

The LGBTQ wage gap is real but uneven: peer-reviewed research consistently finds that gay and bisexual men earn less than comparable heterosexual men, bisexual women also earn less, transgender workers face lower employment and income, while lesbian women on average earn more than heterosexual women. The size of each gap depends on the country, the data and the method, and most countries still do not collect the data needed to measure it.

Discrimination at work has not disappeared either. In the EU Fundamental Rights Agency’s 2023 survey of more than 100,000 LGBTIQ people, 18% felt discriminated against at work, rising to 30% for trans people, and 45% do not disclose being LGBTIQ at work.

This guide summarises what the evidence actually shows, where it is thin, what the law says and what employers can do, including new TalentUp data on how often job ads around the world mention sexual orientation, gender identity or LGBTQ+ inclusion.

Key takeaways

Meta-analyses find a pay penalty for gay and bisexual men and bisexual women, and a premium for lesbian women; penalties persist in data collected after 2010.
Transgender workers have lower employment rates and household incomes than otherwise similar workers in US and Dutch studies.
Hard data is scarce: few official surveys record sexual orientation or gender identity, and most wage-gap figures come from a handful of countries.
In TalentUp’s 2026 job ad sample, sexual orientation or gender identity appears in 30.5% of US ads but under 1% mention LGBTQ+ people explicitly, and fewer than 1 in 1,000 mention gender-affirmation leave or partner coverage.
Fair pay structures, equal benefits and inclusive hiring help close gaps without needing to label anyone.

What the research says about the LGBTQ+ pay gap

Most evidence comes from comparing the earnings of people in same-sex couples or who self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual with heterosexual people of the same age, education, occupation and location. Two meta-analyses, which pool dozens of studies, give the clearest picture.

Group	What the evidence shows	Main sources
Gay men	Earn less than comparable heterosexual men; usually summarised as about 11% less across studies from 1995–2012	Klawitter (2015); Drydakis (2022)
Bisexual men	Earn less than heterosexual men	Drydakis (2022)
Lesbian women	Earn more than comparable heterosexual women, roughly 9% on average, with very wide variation	Klawitter (2015); Drydakis (2022)
Bisexual women	Earn less than heterosexual women	Drydakis (2022)
Transgender workers	Lower employment rates, household incomes and higher poverty than similar non-trans workers (US); trans women earn less after transition (Netherlands)	Carpenter, Eppink & Gonzales (2020); Geijtenbeek & Plug (2018)

Klawitter’s meta-analysis (Industrial Relations, 2015) pooled studies published between 1995 and 2012. It found that differences in study design, especially the sample size of gay respondents, how sexual orientation was measured and whether the study controlled for hours worked, explain much of the variation in the estimates for men.

Drydakis’ update (Journal of Population Economics, 2022) reviewed 24 papers published between 2012 and 2020, using data from 1991 to 2018 in Europe, North America and Australia. It confirms the pattern and finds that, in data sets collected after 2010, gay men and bisexual men and women still face earnings penalties despite anti-discrimination laws.

The gap also varies by country. In his IZA World of Labor review, Drydakis reports that gay men earn about 4–5% less than heterosexual men in the Netherlands, France, Greece and the UK, and 12–16% less in Canada, Sweden and the US.

Transgender workers

Evidence on trans workers is scarcer but points to larger disadvantages. Using representative US health survey data from 35 states (2014–2017, more than 2,100 trans respondents aged 18–64), Carpenter, Eppink and Gonzales (2020) found that transgender people have significantly lower employment rates, lower household incomes and higher poverty rates than otherwise similar non-trans people.

In the Netherlands, Geijtenbeek and Plug (2018) followed trans workers in administrative data before and after their registered gender changed. Trans women earned less after transition, while trans men earned about as much as, or marginally more than, before. The authors read this as consistent with discrimination against workers registered as women.

What about the “90 cents” figure?

A widely quoted estimate from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (2022) puts the median weekly earnings of full-time LGBTQ+ workers in the US at about 90 cents for every dollar earned by the typical worker, with trans women at 60 cents and trans men and non-binary workers at 70 cents. It is useful as an indicator, but it compares a non-probability survey of about 6,800 LGBTQ+ workers (May–June 2021) with official BLS earnings, which the HRC itself notes are not directly comparable. It does not adjust for occupation or experience.

Why the gap exists

Researchers point to several mechanisms, which often reinforce each other:

Hiring discrimination. Field experiments send near-identical CVs that differ only in a signal of sexual orientation. Across the studies reviewed by Drydakis, the hiring penalty ranged from 3% to 40% for gay men and 6% to 27% for lesbian women.
Occupational sorting. LGBTQ+ workers may avoid sectors or employers they see as hostile, and end up concentrated in some occupations, which affects average pay.
Hours and household specialisation. Controlling for work intensity matters, particularly for women. Lesbian women are less likely to cut hours or take long career breaks around children, which helps explain their premium; it is not evidence that they face no discrimination.
Concealment and stress at work. Hiding one’s identity, harassment and exclusion from informal networks can weigh on performance reviews, promotions and retention.
Intersecting disadvantages. Gender, ethnicity, disability and trans status combine. The HRC data, for example, shows LGBTQ+ women earning less than LGBTQ+ men.

Discrimination at work: what the surveys show

Pay gaps are only one part of the picture. Surveys of LGBTQ+ people consistently report unfair treatment at work:

Survey	Sample	Key findings
EU Fundamental Rights Agency, LGBTIQ Survey III (fieldwork 2023, published 2024)	100,577 LGBTIQ people in the 27 EU countries, Albania, North Macedonia and Serbia	18% felt discriminated against at work (21% in 2019); 30% of trans people; 45% do not disclose being LGBTIQ at work
Williams Institute, UCLA (2021)	935 LGBT adults in the US workforce	46% experienced unfair treatment at work at some point; 9% in the past year; 30% were fired or not hired at some point; 50% are not out to their current supervisor

The FRA survey also shows wide differences between countries: the share who do not disclose being LGBTIQ at work ranges from 24% in Denmark to 71% in Cyprus. That matters for employers: if half of LGBTQ+ staff are not out at work, any internal data on sexual orientation will be incomplete by design.

Why most countries cannot measure the gap

Most official labour statistics, including the earnings surveys used to calculate the gender pay gap, do not record sexual orientation or gender identity. Researchers therefore rely on proxies such as same-sex couples in census data (which misses single people and bisexual people in different-sex couples), health surveys that ask about identity, or non-probability samples recruited online.

The consequences are practical:

Estimates are concentrated in a few countries, mainly the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and some Northern European states.
Bisexual, trans and non-binary workers are under-represented, so their gaps are measured less precisely.
Employer pay reporting does not cover it. Gender pay gap reporting, including under the EU Pay Transparency Directive, compares men and women only.

Legal protection against LGBTQ+ pay discrimination

Jurisdiction	Protection
European Union	Directive 2000/78/EC prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation (as well as religion or belief, disability and age) in employment and occupation, explicitly including pay. The EU Court of Justice has held since P v S (C-13/94, 1996) that discrimination linked to gender reassignment is sex discrimination, and Directive 2006/54/EC reflects this.
EU Pay Transparency Directive	Directive (EU) 2023/970 focuses on pay equality between women and men, but it recognises intersectional discrimination, where sex combines with other protected grounds such as sexual orientation. Its obligations apply through national laws once transposed; the transposition deadline was 7 June 2026.
United Kingdom	The Equality Act 2010 lists sexual orientation and gender reassignment as protected characteristics, including in pay and benefits.
United States	In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the Supreme Court held that firing someone for being gay or transgender is sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

National laws often go further than the EU minimum, so check the rules in each country where you employ people. Even where the law is clear, the surveys above show that enforcement depends on employers’ own pay processes.

TalentUp data: how job ads talk about LGBTQ+ inclusion

Job ads are the first signal candidates get about an employer’s culture. We analysed the text of about 27,300 job postings published between January and September 2026 in 14 countries to see how often employers mention LGBTQ+ inclusion.

30.5%

of US job ads name sexual orientation or gender identity, mostly in equal-opportunity clauses

0.8%

of US job ads mention LGBTQ+ people, networks or communities explicitly

7.8%

of Australian ads mention LGBTQ+ people explicitly, the highest share in our sample

<0.1%

of all sampled ads mention gender-affirmation leave or same-sex/domestic partner coverage

Source: TalentUp job postings database, January–September 2026, about 27,300 sampled postings in 14 countries.

Country	Ads analysed (n)	Any diversity or equal-opportunity statement	Names sexual orientation or gender identity	Mentions LGBTQ+ people explicitly
United States	1,600	50.4%	30.5%	0.8%
Mexico	1,930	32.5%	18.8%	0.8%
Ireland	2,230	44.0%	16.3%	1.2%
Canada	2,320	45.8%	15.5%	1.6%
Spain	2,050	32.5%	13.9%	0.9%
Germany	1,480	27.7%	12.7%	2.9%
Portugal	2,270	30.3%	12.4%	0.3%
Brazil	1,000	28.5%	12.0%	3.8%
Australia	1,950	52.3%	11.8%	7.8%
India	1,890	20.6%	10.0%	0.4%
United Kingdom	1,830	35.6%	9.8%	1.4%
Italy	2,130	23.7%	8.9%	0.3%
France	2,210	26.6%	4.9%	0.3%
Netherlands	2,380	15.6%	4.9%	0.1%

Three patterns stand out:

Most mentions are legal boilerplate. In the US, almost every reference to sexual orientation or gender identity sits in a standard equal employment opportunity clause (“without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity…”). Only 12 of about 1,600 US ads went further and mentioned LGBTQ+ people, networks or communities.
Explicit inclusion is rare everywhere, but more common in Australia, Brazil and Germany. Australian ads often invite applications from “LGBTIQA+ people” alongside First Nations candidates and people with disability; in Germany and Brazil, a few large employers that mention their LGBTIQ networks or affirmative hiring account for a large share of mentions.
Inclusive benefits are almost never advertised. Across the whole sample we found only 19 ads (fewer than 1 in 1,000) that mention gender-affirmation leave or care or health coverage for same-sex or domestic partners. Most were in Australia (8 ads, 0.4%) and Canada.

Methodology

Source: TalentUp job postings database, postings created between 1 January and 30 September 2026. Sample: random samples of up to 4,000 postings per country in 14 countries (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, India, Brazil, Mexico), keeping postings with descriptions of at least 1,500 characters and removing duplicate texts: about 27,300 postings (n = 1,000–2,400 per country). Method: multilingual pattern matching (English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese), validated by reading samples of matched snippets. “Any statement” counts equal-opportunity, diversity or inclusion wording; “names sexual orientation or gender identity” counts explicit mentions of either term (or gender expression); “mentions LGBTQ+ people explicitly” counts terms such as LGBT, LGBTQIA+, queer, non-binary or Pride networks, excluding a syndication footer added by an LGBTQ+ job board that is not written by the employer. Benefit mentions were checked one by one, excluding false positives such as “military spouse/domestic partner” requirements and hotel discounts. Limitations: an ad’s wording is not proof of an employer’s policy, and many employers describe benefits on their careers page rather than in each ad; country differences partly reflect legal conventions (such as US EEO statements), language and the mix of sources; a few large employers posting many ads can move a country’s figure.

What employers can do to close the gap

You do not need to know anyone’s sexual orientation to pay people fairly. Most of the effective measures are the same ones that close the gender pay gap: clear job levels, objective pay criteria and regular checks.

1. Run a pay equity audit built on objective criteria

Compare the pay of people doing the same work or work of equal value, and require an objective, job-related reason for every difference. A rigorous pay equity audit protects everyone, including groups you cannot see in your HR data. Pair it with a review of internal equity versus market pay so that starting salaries, raises and promotions follow the same rules.

2. Handle LGBTQ+ data lawfully, or not at all

Data on a person’s sexual orientation is special category data under Article 9 of the GDPR. If you want to analyse outcomes by sexual orientation or gender identity, use voluntary, anonymous surveys with explicit consent, minimum group sizes and legal advice. If you cannot do it lawfully, rely on structural checks instead.

3. Make benefits equal by design

Extend health, pension and life insurance cover to spouses and partners regardless of gender, including registered or cohabiting partners where your plans allow it.
Write parental leave policies for all parents, including non-birthing, adoptive and surrogacy parents.
Check whether your health insurance covers gender-affirming care, and consider gender-affirmation leave; our data shows how rarely employers offer or advertise it.

For a broader view of how benefits fit into total reward, see why benefits are a crucial part of compensation.

4. Remove bias from hiring and promotion

Publish a real salary range in every job ad: it anchors offers to the role rather than to negotiation or pay history. Our guide to transparent salary job postings explains how.
Go beyond the legal boilerplate if you want candidates to believe it: describe concrete policies, employee networks or benefits.
Use structured interviews and scorecards, and review promotion decisions for unexplained differences.

5. Build a culture where people do not need to hide

If almost half of LGBTIQ employees in the EU do not disclose who they are at work, the cost shows up in stress, retention and careers. Clear anti-harassment policies, trained managers and visible support from leadership matter as much as pay processes, and they shape how candidates judge your employer brand, as we explain in why your people team is your brand.

Conclusion

The LGBTQ wage gap is not a single number. Gay and bisexual men, bisexual women and trans workers tend to earn less, lesbian women on average earn more than heterosexual women, and in every group the estimates depend on where and how they were measured. What is consistent is that discrimination at work persists, that most countries do not collect the data to track it, and that employers rarely signal inclusion beyond legal boilerplate.

Employers do not need perfect data to act. Objective pay structures, regular pay equity audits, equal benefits and inclusive hiring reduce unexplained gaps for everyone. To check that your salaries are anchored to the market, start with our methodology and the European Salary Benchmark Report.

Sources

TalentUp. Job postings database, about 27,300 sampled postings in 14 countries, January–September 2026 (see methodology above).
Klawitter, M. (2015). Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Sexual Orientation on Earnings. Industrial Relations, 54(1), 4–32. https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/indres/v54y2015i1p4-32.html
Drydakis, N. (2022). Sexual orientation and earnings: a meta-analysis 2012–2020. Journal of Population Economics, 35(2), 409–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-021-00862-1
Drydakis, N. (2019). Sexual orientation and labor market outcomes. IZA World of Labor, 111, v2. https://wol.iza.org/articles/sexual-orientation-and-labor-market-outcomes/long
Carpenter, C. S., Eppink, S. T. and Gonzales, G. (2020). Transgender Status, Gender Identity, and Socioeconomic Outcomes in the United States. ILR Review. https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2020/04/13/transgender-americans-experience-significant-economic-health-challenges-study
Geijtenbeek, L. and Plug, E. (2018). Is there a penalty for registered women? Is there a premium for registered men? Evidence from a sample of transsexual workers. European Economic Review, 109, 334–347. https://docs.iza.org/dp9077.pdf
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2024). LGBTIQ equality at a crossroads: progress and challenges (EU LGBTIQ Survey III). https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2024/lgbtiq-equality-crossroads-progress-and-challenges
Sears, B. et al. (2021). LGBT People’s Experiences of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment. Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/workplace-discrim-press-release
Human Rights Campaign Foundation (2022). The Wage Gap Among LGBTQ+ Workers in the United States. https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-wage-gap-among-LGBTQ-workers-in-the-united-states
Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/78/oj
Directive 2006/54/EC on equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in employment and occupation (recast). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2006/54/oj
Court of Justice of the EU, Case C-13/94, P v S and Cornwall County Council (1996). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61994CJ0013
Directive (EU) 2023/970 on pay transparency. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/970/oj
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), Article 9. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj
UK Equality Act 2010. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

Frequently asked questions

Is there an LGBTQ wage gap?

Yes, but it is not the same for every group. Meta-analyses find that gay and bisexual men earn less than comparable heterosexual men, bisexual women also earn less, while lesbian women on average earn more than heterosexual women. Studies of transgender workers point to lower employment and income.

How big is the pay gap for gay men?

Estimates vary by country, data set and method. Klawitter's 2015 meta-analysis is usually summarised as a penalty of around 11% compared with similar heterosexual men, and a later review reports gaps of about 4–5% in the Netherlands, France, Greece and the UK and 12–16% in Canada, Sweden and the US.

Why do lesbian women earn more than heterosexual women?

Researchers link the premium mainly to work intensity and household specialisation: lesbian women are less likely to reduce hours or take career breaks around children. It does not mean lesbian women escape discrimination; women of every sexual orientation still earn less than men on average.

Are LGBTQ+ workers protected against pay discrimination in the EU?

Yes. Directive 2000/78/EC bans discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in employment, explicitly including pay, and the EU Court of Justice treats discrimination linked to gender reassignment as sex discrimination. National laws implement and often extend these rules.

Can employers measure the LGBTQ+ pay gap?

Only with care. Sexual orientation is special category data under the GDPR, so most employers cannot simply record it. Where lawful, voluntary and anonymous surveys with clear safeguards can complement a pay equity audit that checks pay against objective, job-related criteria.

Written by

TalentUp Team

Salary intelligence and HR analytics

The TalentUp team combines compensation consultants, data analysts and HR specialists. We publish research based on salary data for 475+ roles in 75 countries to help companies pay fairly and competitively.