discrimination at workplace essay

Discrimination at the Workplace: Legislations Regarding Discrimination Essay

Introduction, equal pay act (1963), the 1964 civil rights act: title vii, disparate treatment vs. disparate impact, quid proquo/hostile working environment, reference list.

Discriminating individuals at the workplace on the basis of their age, creed, gender, disability, race, or national origin is illegal. The 1960s are regarded as ‘turbulent times’ in as far as the issue of discrimination at the workplace is concerned. In order to overcome this vice, it became necessary to implement certain legislations.

Consequently, dramatic changes were made to help curb discrimination at the workplace. Businesses today can now enjoy more diverse and larger pools of employees because they are increasingly adapting procedures and policies that ensure that the hiring and firing processes of employees does not take place along racial, gender, age, disability, nationality, or creed lines (Hernandez, 2009).

Legislation to help curb workplace discrimination goes as far back as during the medieval times in Europe, when the feudal systems were still popular. This was also the time when slavery was enshrined in the European culture. It was also a period of child labor and sweatshops, not to mention indentured servitude.

Owing to the various forms of discrimination that employees were exposed to at the workplace, they therefore demanded for legislation to help curb the trend (Hernandez, 2009). In the United States, legislation took place during the 1960s, a period that is popularly known as ‘the turbulent 1960s’. There is a need to explore the various legislations regarding discrimination in the workplace and how they have impacted on the welfare of employees.

The legislation of the Equal Pay Act in 1963 ensured that women received equal pay to that of their male counterparts. In addition, the Equal Pay Act also allowed minority groups to enjoy equal pay just like their fellow employees from the other larger groups (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.).

During this time, there was also discrimination with regard to job advertisements. For example, employment ads would list job descriptions along the gender divide. As a result, there would be ‘jobs for men’. As can be expected, such jobs were better paying in comparison with similar jobs that targeted women. This was the case even when the two jobs had more or less the same description, the only difference being the gender.

The requirement of the Equal Pay Act is that one sex cannot have their wages lowered as a way of preventing an increase on the wages of another sex. Nonetheless, a number of employers are still embroiled in a heated debate on what exactly constitutes equal pay.

Accordingly, several employers have even gone to the extent of altering job titles and changing some of the peripheral requirements associated with a given job title in order to ensure that men earn more than their female counterparts (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.).

Even during the 1970s, sexual division was very evident in newspapers ads, such as the ‘Help Wanted’ ads. As such, it became increasingly difficult at the time to establish whether or not the requirements were similar. In recent decades however, women have continued to enjoy equality at the workplace.

Although the Equal Pay Act was faced with numerous problems during the initial implementation stages, on the other hand, it has over the years impacted positively on women’s wages. Although cases of disparity in ages between men and women still remains, nevertheless, the gap that existed during the 1950s has considerably narrowed.

Prior to the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, employees would have their job applications rejected by potential employers on grounds of their race, gender, religion, or national origin. An employee seeking for promotion at the workplace would often have his/her request turned down on the basis of the aforementioned factors as well.

In addition, employers would decide not to award a certain assignment to a specific employee because he/she was white, black, male, female, a Christian, or a Muslim. This was all illegal. The passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was especially a welcome respite for the African-Americans who had hitherto undergone through untold misery and discrimination at the workplace mainly due to the color of their skin.

The passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was triggered by nationwide demonstrations, although these were more prominent in the South (CongressLink, 2006). This particular legislation also encompassed Title VII, a wide scale prohibition of workplace discrimination on the basis of sex, race, national origin, color, and religion.

Save for several exceptions, the law was for the most part all-inclusive and was very instrumental in helping to amend past issues. With time, human resource department in different organization across the country embraced Title VII and with time, it became the standard operating procedure.

However, there were evident gaps on the issue of disability and age and as time went by, the two issues were brought to the forefront. However, with the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by Congress, it became illegal for employers to discriminate employees on the basis of their religion, race, national origin, color, and sex (CongressLink, 2006). Through this law, employees within an organization are protected from possible discrimination by their employers. In addition, the law also protects job applicants.

Further, the law requires that all organizations with over 15 employees abide by the established rules under Title V11 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In addition, the law was also instrumental in the establishment of the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), a body charged with the responsibility of implementing this particular law, along with other laws that seeks to protect employees against discrimination at the workplace (CongressLink, 2006).

One might then wonder, how exactly does the 1964 Civil Rights Act protect an employee against discrimination by an employer at the workplace? According to the EEOC, no employer should recruit or fire an employee based on one’s race, gender or national origin, gender.

Accordingly, during the process of recruiting candidates for a job vacancy for example, an employer is prohibited from discriminating the candidates on the basis of the aforementioned factors. The same case applies in when testing the applicants, or while advertising for a given position within the organization.

Further, the EEOC stipulates that an employer cannot use a worker’s race, religion, color, gender, or national origin as the yardstick with which to fire or promote him/her. The EEOC also requires employers to desist from using this information at a time when they are involved in the task of allocating duties to workers. In addition employers are not allowed to fringe benefit or retirement leave based on one’s gender, race or religion.

A disparate treatment occurs when there is evidence to suggest that a member of a certain protected groups has been seen to have received less favorable treatment in comparison to members of another protected group under otherwise similar circumstances based on an impermissible criterion as spelt out by Title VII (Peffer 2009).

The main issue that needs to be addressed here is the motivation behind the intentions of an employer that is, whether or not an employer executed these actions with the intention of discriminating an employee. Nonetheless, proof of evidence is normally required and in this case, it could be a case of circumstantial evidence, if not indirect/direct evidence. Disparate treatment symbolizes the simplest form of illegal discrimination.

A very fundamental question that could find use in testing for disparate treatment is whether the employment decision under investigation would be any different if the employee’s color, gender, race, national origin, religion, disability, and age was different? Title VII prohibits employers from treating a group of employees differently in comparison with the treatment gotten by other employees on grounds that they belong to a different protected class.

The same case applies to job applicants (Peffer 2009). In disparate treatment, the main issue is to decide if the actions of an employer were motivated by the intention to discriminate, and such proof can be obtained through circumstantial or direct evidence.

In a case whereby disparate treatment is involved, often times, the claim of the employee is that he/she was treated differently by their employer, in comparison with the other employees under the same working conditions. For instance, Naomi and Paul may skip work one day and the employer decided to fire Naomi and not Paul.

In case there is compelling evidence to support the claim that indeed, Naomi was fired because she is female, at that point, this case becomes a form of disparate treatment, on the basis of sex. It is therefore a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On the other hand, if Naomi was fired based on her deteriorating attendance record, then the case becomes a disparate treatment, on the basis of difference in attendance.

From such a perceptive, the firing is lawful. In a case whereby a disparate impact is involved, the employer is deemed to have a practice whose impact is greater on one group in comparison with another. For instance, the employer may fail to hire janitors who lack a high school diploma. Such a decision could impact greatly on the entire African Americans, in comparison with the whites.

Title VII forbids employers from utilizing an employment practice that is facially neutral and in such a manner as to impact negatively on certain members of a protected class. This is the case even if the employer in question is not acting under the motivation of discriminatory intent. Occasionally, disparate impact is labeled unintentional discrimination. Violations of the law under disparate impact could occur due to an intentional error committed by an employer.

The underlying principle of disparate impact is evidence that a number of employment decisions, policies or practices impact negatively on a certain class of employee more than it does a different class (Peffer 2009). There is need for employers who are still stuck with different policies and practices in arriving as work-related decisions to be completely wary of any form of statistical disparity on the basis of national origin, sex, or race.

There are two forms of sexual harassment at the workplace. On the one hand we have sexually harassment acts in which a consideration is involved, better known as “quid pro quo” (translated, this means something for something. On the other hand, there are acts of sexual harassment that falls under a “hostile environment”.

The two forms of sexually harassment are illegal at the workplace. In the first forms of sexual harassment (“quid pro quo”), by and large, persons performing the act are usually those in power, that is, a manger or supervision (Hernandez, 2009).

On the other hand, in “quid pro quo”, the victim often feels that she or he needs to respond to or perform a sexual advance with the intention of gaining something in return. There is need to appreciate the fact that sexual advance acts should not occur at the workplace. In addition, in order that “quid pro quo” may apply, victims are not obligated to act or respond to sexual advances.

The “hostile environment” requires the victim to demonstrate the offender’s pattern on conduct. For the most part, the “hostile environment” form of sexual harassment is usually underreported at the workplace.

This is because a majority of the victims are least prepared in as far as the documentation of exercise of the events of sexual harassment is concerned. In order to qualify as sexual harassment, an established pattern needs to be in place (Hernandez, 2009). In addition, it is important to demonstrate that the pattern in question has resulted in a deterioration of the victim’s work setting.

By the same extension, the Supreme Court requires that a form of physical or invasive event must be involved in order that an act of sexual may be categorized as such. Sexual harassment contravenes section 703 of Title VII and as such, it is punishable by law. An employer could be held liable for sexual harassment at the workplace in case there is enough evidence to prove that indeed, he or she has conducted this act. Depending on the nature of the sexual harassment, the perpetrator could be imprisoned or fined, or both.

Prior to the 1960s, discrimination at the workplace on the bass of gender, race, national origin, age creed and disability was quite rampant in the United States. The ‘turbulent’ 1960s therefore was an important era in the history of the United States because it led to the implementation of various laws aimed at reducing incidences of discrimination at the workplace.

This implementation started with the 1963 Equal Pay Act. Under this Act, women would now enjoy equal pay in comparison with their male counterparts. Although the new law made slow progress, nonetheless, it was a major milestone for women. In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. According to Title VII of the United States’ Civil Rights Act, employers are forbidden from using race, religion, color, gender and national origin as a basis for discriminating employees at the workplace.

As such, perpetrators of this law are punishable by law. The same case applies to job seekers. This is referred to as disparate treatment. Title VII also takes into account the issue of disparate impact. The underlying principle of disparate impact is evidence that a number of employment decisions, policies or practices impact negatively on a certain class of employee more than it does a different class.

The law also prohibits any of the two forms of sexual harassment at the workplace (Quid ProQuo and hostile working environment). Since it is a violation of the law, there is need for employers to put in place mechanism that shall minimize the occurrences of any form of discrimination at the workplace.

CongressLink. (2006). Major features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. CongressLink . Web.

Hernandez, S. R. (2009). Strategic human resource management in health services organizations. Stamford, Mass: Cengage Learning.

Peffer, S. L. (2009). Title VII and Disparate-Treatment Discrimination Versus Disparate-Impact Discrimination: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29(4), 402-410

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). The Equal Pay Act of 1963.

• The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Impact
• Does Title VII Conflict With the First Amendment
• Lanning v. SEPTA: Employment Discrimination and Testing Practices
• Human Resource Planning as a Branch of Human Resource Management
• The Role of Leadership Programs in Business
• Various Concepts Used in Decision-Making in Business
• Strategic Management Plan
• Information Handling: the Selection and Acquisition Process
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, August 4). Discrimination at the Workplace: Legislations Regarding Discrimination. https://ivypanda.com/essays/discrimination-at-the-workplace/

"Discrimination at the Workplace: Legislations Regarding Discrimination." IvyPanda , 4 Aug. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/discrimination-at-the-workplace/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Discrimination at the Workplace: Legislations Regarding Discrimination'. 4 August.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Discrimination at the Workplace: Legislations Regarding Discrimination." August 4, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/discrimination-at-the-workplace/.

1. IvyPanda . "Discrimination at the Workplace: Legislations Regarding Discrimination." August 4, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/discrimination-at-the-workplace/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Discrimination at the Workplace: Legislations Regarding Discrimination." August 4, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/discrimination-at-the-workplace/.

• Data, AI, & Machine Learning
• Managing Technology
• Social Responsibility
• Workplace, Teams, & Culture
• AI & Machine Learning
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Big ideas Research Projects
• Artificial Intelligence and Business Strategy
• Responsible AI
• Future of the Workforce
• Future of Leadership
• All Research Projects
• AI in Action
• Most Popular
• The Truth Behind the Nursing Crisis
• Work/23: The Big Shift
• Coaching for the Future-Forward Leader
• Measuring Culture

The spring 2024 issue’s special report looks at how to take advantage of market opportunities in the digital space, and provides advice on building culture and friendships at work; maximizing the benefits of LLMs, corporate venture capital initiatives, and innovation contests; and scaling automation and digital health platform.

• Past Issues
• Upcoming Events
• Video Archive
• Me, Myself, and AI
• Three Big Points

Confronting the Uncomfortable Reality of Workplace Discrimination

The U.S. is finally addressing racism in law enforcement. While we’re at it, let’s tackle workplace discrimination as well.

• Data, AI, & Machine Learning
• Workplace, Teams, & Culture
• Leading Change
• Analytics & Business Intelligence
• Organizational Behavior

Widespread protests have filled the streets in every U.S. state and around the world almost daily since George Floyd’s murder at the hands of Minneapolis police late in May. As the Black Lives Matter movement reminds us — and as the murders of Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, Breonna Taylor, and too many others have made painfully obvious — Black people often experience a harsher standard of treatment at the hands of the police than White people do. The sheer number and variety of people now speaking out on social media against discrimination and police brutality, and organizing and attending diverse protests worldwide, suggest that the push toward greater accountability and racial equality in law enforcement is gaining momentum. We could not be happier about this development — but we can’t stop there.

Our research involves a different form of racial discrimination, one that directly affects almost every facet of Black American lives. Workplace discrimination — employers’ tendency to value White employees over Black employees — has had devastating consequences for generations of Black Americans. We know some of the solutions, but we need the social will to implement them.

Get Updates on Transformative Leadership

Evidence-based resources that can help you lead your team more effectively, delivered to your inbox monthly.

Please enter a valid email address

Thank you for signing up

Privacy Policy

The list of discriminatory workplace practices is long and backed by research . Applicants with White-sounding names are more likely to receive calls back from potential employers than those with Black-sounding names. 1 Studies have shown that darker-skinned applicants face distinctive disadvantages when applying for jobs compared with lighter-skinned applicants. 2 One study even found that a White applicant with a criminal record received more interest from employers than a Black applicant with no record — an injustice compounded by the racial discrimination of law enforcement, which has increased the likelihood that Black Americans will have a criminal record. 3

Systemic discrimination doesn’t stop once someone has landed a job. Racial bias affects negotiations over starting pay, future wages, and upward mobility. In short, Black employees start off making less money than their White colleagues, a disparity that compounds over time. Black employees also receive promotions less often. 4

A third significant blow comes when economic times are tough, as they are now. Many Black Americans believe they are the “last hired and first fired,” and it appears that there is some truth to that. Across industries and job levels, Black employees are more likely than White employees to be laid off or fired, particularly in times of transition and economic uncertainty. 5 That’s true even after accounting for any other factors — such as experience or education levels — that might provide an alternative explanation.

Employment discrimination and racism, combined with the COVID-19 pandemic, have proved absolutely disastrous for Black Americans. More unemployment, less health care coverage, overrepresentation in public-facing “essential” jobs, and underrepresentation in jobs that can be performed remotely have left many Black Americans in the crosshairs of the virus , both economically and physically. Indeed, Black Americans are nearly 2.5 times as likely as their White counterparts to die from COVID-19.

None of this should detract from the essential work of addressing racial disparities in law enforcement, but let’s not limit the power of this movement to criminal justice. To reach the full potential of the current movement, we must fight systemic racism in all facets of life, including employment. To combat workplace discrimination, we encourage employers to apply the following strategies:

• Think long term. Much of the racism we are seeing is structural, having been built into institutions for decades, so it is unlikely to be remediated altogether in a matter of months. To make substantive, long-lasting changes, senior-level executives should deliberately define not only diversity but also inclusion as elements of their organizations’ strategic- and succession-planning processes. Consciously working to develop inclusive systems can help catalyze a positive trickle-down effect. 6
• Start playing detective. Like police brutality, racial discrimination is against the law. However, there is unlikely to be video evidence to prove that it has occurred, particularly when it’s not explicit. Organizations need to conduct diversity audits, looking at human resource data for signs of racism. For example, examining personnel data by race for systemic differences can surface discriminatory practices, such as in performance management — Black employees being rewarded less generously for good performance, perhaps, or reprimanded more harshly for counterproductive work behavior like tardiness than White colleagues who exhibit similar behavior. 7 Additionally, look for signs of workplace segregation by job types and levels within the company, which may stymie the promotion of Black employees to the upper ranks. HR personnel can examine such data and include it in periodic internal reports. In addition, senior executives can collaborate with HR in carefully reviewing and comparing data on performance, compensation, and other financial rewards to discern internal racial inequities.
• Look for both intentional and unintentional discrimination. Discrimination can be intentional (disparate treatment) or unintentional (disparate impact), and it is important to address both aspects of it. Good intentions may be enough to reduce intentional discrimination, but they won’t stop unintentional bias. For instance, companies often place hurdles in the hiring process, looking for qualities or qualifications that aren’t truly needed to perform the job, which can skew the hiring selection in favor of some groups. Unintentional discrimination also can occur in interpersonal interactions, such as in extending (or neglecting to extend) invitations to participate in networking opportunities or events where important decisions are made, and in overlooking or discrediting the contributions of Black employees. 8 Unintentional discrimination is often subtle, yet its consequences can be as harmful to its targets, and in some cases more so, than intentional discrimination. 9
• Hold everyone accountable. Systems of accountability are critical to limiting the impact of individual biases. When people know someone is watching, discrimination often declines. Surveys, focus groups, and affinity groups can provide valuable information about an organization’s climate and the degree to which it is inclusive of all employees. The information gleaned from these tools can be used to assess organizational progress. Many large companies, in fact, now tie executive compensation to the achievement of organizational diversity goals .

Related Articles

Additionally, establishing and enforcing consequences for violations sends a clear message about accountability and signals that racial bias will not be tolerated. Front-line managers can be a first line of defense by conducting regular check-ins with employees to monitor whether the work environment is free from discrimination (both intentional and unintentional) and help ensure that it is by enforcing zero-tolerance or progressive discipline policies. Individual employees can also hold one another accountable by recognizing and speaking up against racial bias when they see it. Research shows that confronting individuals about racial bias can reduce such behavior. 10 The effects of witnessing racial bias have been compared to exposure to secondhand smoke, with repercussions for bystanders as well as targets, making such confrontations helpful not only for the targets of bias but also for their colleagues. 11

Racial discrimination in the workplace, racial bias in police brutality, and racial inequality in the outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic are not isolated phenomena. The interconnected devaluation of Black lives (relative to White ones) extends across settings; the systemic racism that makes Black Americans more susceptible to police brutality also perpetuates continued racial inequalities across the employment life cycle. As the movement for greater racial equality grows and we continue to fight systemic racism in policing, we must also tackle racial discrimination in other important contexts, including education, health care, housing, finance, and, of course, the workplace. To be clear, the actions outlined above alone won’t solve the problem of workplace discrimination, but they could move us a step closer to the lofty ideals of equal opportunity espoused by America’s founders and promised by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Editor’s Note: An adapted version of this article appears in the Fall 2020 print edition.

About the Authors

Derek R. Avery is the C.T. Bauer Chair of Inclusive Leadership at the Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston. Enrica N. Ruggs ( @enruggs ) is an assistant professor of management and director of the Center for Workplace Diversity and Inclusion at the Fogelman College of Business and Economics at the University of Memphis.

1. M. Bertrand and S. Mullainathan, “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination,” The American Economic Review 94, no. 4 (September 2004): 991-1013.

2. M.S. Harrison and K.M. Thomas, “The Hidden Prejudice in Selection: A Research Investigation on Skin Color Bias,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 39, no. 1 (January 2009): 134-168.

3. D. Pager, “The Mark of a Criminal Record,” American Journal of Sociology 108, no. 5 (March 2003): 937-975.

4. D.R. Avery, S.D. Volpone, and O. Holmes IV, “Racial Discrimination in Organizations,” ch. 7 in “The Oxford Handbook of Workplace Discrimination,” eds. A.J. Colella and E.B. King (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018).

5. K.A. Couch and R. Fairlie, “Last Hired, First Fired? Black-White Unemployment and the Business Cycle,” Demography 47, no. 1 (February 2010): 227-247; and K.A. Couch, R. Fairlie, and H. Xu, “Racial Differences in Labor Market Transitions and the Great Recession,” in “Transitions Through the Labor Market,” eds. S.W. Polachek and K. Tatsiramos (Somerville, Massachusetts: Emerald Publishing, 2018), 1-54.

6. D.A. Thomas, “Diversity as Strategy,” Harvard Business Review 82, no. 9 (September 2004): 98-108.

7. A. Luksyte, E. Waite, D.R. Avery, et al., “Held to a Different Standard: Racial Differences in the Impact of Lateness on Advancement Opportunity,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 86, no. 2 (April 2013): 142-165.

8. A.N. Smith, M.B. Watkins, J.J. Ladge, et al., “Making the Invisible Visible: Paradoxical Effects of Intersectional Invisibility on the Career Experiences of Executive Black Women,” Academy of Management Journal 62, no. 6 (December 2019): 1705-1734.

9. K.P. Jones, C.I. Peddie, V.L. Gilrane, et al., “Not So Subtle: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Correlates of Subtle and Overt Discrimination,” Journal of Management 42, no. 6 (September 2016): 1588-1613.

10. A.M. Czopp, M.J. Monteith, and A.Y. Mark, “Standing Up for a Change: Reducing Bias Through Interpersonal Confrontation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90, no. 5 (May 2006): 784-803.

11. D. Chrobot-Mason, B.R. Ragins, and F. Linnehan, “Second Hand Smoke: Ambient Racial Harassment at Work,” Journal of Managerial Psychology 28, no. 5 (2013): 470-491.

More Like This

Add a comment cancel reply.

You must sign in to post a comment. First time here? Sign up for a free account : Comment on articles and get access to many more articles.

Comments (3)

Brittany granberry, shirley engelmeier.

Photo by Kham/Reuters

The last great stigma

Workers with mental illness experience discrimination that would be unthinkable for other health issues. can this change.

by Pernille Yilmam   + BIO

It is not difficult to find stories about the burdens and barriers faced by employees or job-seekers with mental illness. For example, it was recently reported that Scotland’s police denied a position to a promising trainee because of her use of antidepressants – in keeping with a rule that officers must be without antidepressant treatment for at least two years. In other cases, people have reported being fired from jobs at a university, a nursing home facility, a radio station, and a state agency following requests for medical leave due to postpartum depression, anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder, respectively. A US government commission maintains a select list of resolved lawsuits against companies that involved claims of mistreatment based on a worker’s mental health condition.

Often, the impact of negative attitudes toward mental illness is less overt than in these examples. More than a decade ago, a university professor named Suzanne published a book in which she openly discussed her life with bipolar disorder. The personal details that she revealed in the book, she told me, became a foundation for discriminatory treatment at her workplace. She said she experienced professional isolation in the hallways and meeting rooms: that colleagues stopped inviting her to collaborate with them, that she was shut down in department meetings and cut off from participating in decision-making committees. She attributes these developments to knowledge of her mental illness.

‘I experienced a very noticeable chill, averted eyes, actually being cut off when speaking in meetings,’ Suzanne recalled. ‘Lots of loaded language, of the “Well, SOME people just need to take their meds” variety, in meetings. This was the stage of my professional career where I started calling myself “the crazy lady in the corner”.’ At one point, when she had to take medical leave to address symptoms associated with her condition, a colleague opined that she was ‘lucky’ to have the option.

I n light of such stories, it’s not surprising that concerns about revealing mental health problems at work are commonplace. It’s estimated that 15 per cent of working-age adults have a mental health condition, and in a 2021 survey in the US, three-quarters of workers reported one or more symptoms of mental illness. One study surveying more than 800 people with major depressive disorder worldwide found that between 30 and 45 per cent reported experiencing discrimination in the workplace, with people in high-income countries reporting it at higher rates. A third of US employees polled by the American Psychiatric Association said they were worried about the consequences at work if they sought help for their mental health condition. In England, 61 per cent of survey respondents who were severely affected by mental illness said that ‘the fear of being stigmatised or discriminated against’ stopped them from applying for jobs and promotions. While there are signs that stigma related to mental illness has decreased over time (at least in some countries), stigma and discrimination continue to pose a problem in many workplaces.

Since the 1990s, a number of laws around the world have prohibited discrimination against employees with physical and mental disabilities. Among these are the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in the US, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 in Australia, and Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 in the European Union. While these laws have done much to advance protections for people with disabilities, their impact on the treatment of people with mental illness – which constitutes a form of disability for many – has clearly had limits.

Mental illness-related discrimination persists as a multilayered problem characterised by fear, misconceptions and underenforced laws. The encouraging news is that scientists have been developing interventions to help reduce stigma and discrimination related to mental illness – approaches that should receive much more attention if advocates, employers and governments want to make workplaces fairer for all.

Job seekers reluctant to mention a mental illness history were more likely to be employed six months later

Discrimination against people with mental illness is often rooted in preconceived notions about what mental illness is and how it affects someone’s ability to work. These negative misconceptions are forms of mental illness stigma . Research has found that stigma is sometimes expressed by employers and colleagues as an issue of trust: eg, a belief that people with mental illness need more supervision, that they lack initiative, or that they are unable to deal with clients directly. Some might believe that people with mental illness are dangerous, or that they should hold only manual, lower-paying jobs. Research also suggests that many employers and coworkers believe people with mental illness should participate in the workforce, but are reluctant to work with them directly – which has been described as a type of ‘not in my backyard’ phenomenon.

Discriminatory behaviours have been investigated as well. In the US, researchers found that fictitious job applications that mentioned an applicant’s hospitalisation for mental illness led to fewer callbacks than applications noting a hospitalisation for a physical injury. Similar results were observed in Norway. In Germany, scientists found that job seekers who were more reluctant to mention their mental illness history in applications and interviews were more likely to be employed six months later. In addition to the potential impact on hiring, some people with mental illness have told researchers they believe they have been refused a promotion due to their condition.

In one revealing study , Matthew Ridley, an economist at Warwick University in the UK, had pairs of strangers collaborate on a virtual task. Before the task, each participant was shown characteristics of the person they had been matched with, which in some cases included mental illness. Ridley then asked if they wanted to be paired with someone else instead. The participants, he found, tended to be willing to give up some of their anticipated financial compensation to avoid working with a person who had significant depression or anxiety symptoms. When asked why, they indicated that they thought people with a mental illness would be less efficient in completing the task, would require more support, and would be less fun to work with. (For their part, among the participants who revealed to Ridley that they had a mental illness, a majority said they would pay to not have that fact revealed to their partner.)

In the end, participants were paired randomly and, when Ridley analysed the results, he found no differences in task success or enjoyment, regardless of whether someone worked with a person who had a mental illness. The findings capture how negative assumptions can come into play – and prove to be inaccurate – even in the context of a temporary collaboration.

T he perpetuation of mental illness stigma and discrimination comes at a cost not only to the affected individual, but also to companies and societies. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that mental illness costs the global economy $1 trillion annually. Among the reasons for these astronomical costs are the higher rates of sick days and unemployment among people with mental illness. The increased absences are partly due to lack of access to treatment; in 2021, it was estimated that only half of all US adults with mental illness had received mental health services in the past year. But a potential aggravating factor is that some employees with mental illness refrain from using their work-associated health insurance for treatment, out of fear that their employer will learn about their condition, resulting in their dismissal, or other forms of discrimination.

The denial of reasonable workplace accommodations could also make a person’s job more difficult and absences more likely. For a person who uses a wheelchair, an accommodation might be a ramp where there are stairs; for a person with a mental health condition, such as an anxiety disorder or ADHD, it could mean having a private office or noise-cancelling headphones to help with concentration problems, or flexibility in one’s work hours in order to attend healthcare appointments or accommodate heightened symptoms. It could also mean requesting leave for a mental health condition – up to 12 weeks in the US, similar to medical leave for physical injuries or for sickness. But some employees might avoid requesting the accommodations they are legally allowed to receive, simply because they suspect that doing so puts their job security and potential for advancement at risk.

The greater amount of absences among people with mental illness can make firings more likely. Losing a job can worsen mental illness, and people often stop applying for new jobs because they anticipate stigma and discrimination.

A list of the top 10 disabilities in US discrimination claims included depression, anxiety disorder and PTSD

Of course, one’s experience of work itself – a major cause of stress for many people – can also contribute to mental illness. One woman I spoke with, whom I’ll call Sara, shared that unsupportive and hostile work environments have made her anxiety even worse than it used to be. She believes that having to take time off work for her mental health led to her sudden termination from her previous job.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), US employers are legally prohibited from discriminating based on physical or mental disabilities at any point during hiring, firing or professional evaluation. The same is true in Australia, based on the Disability Discrimination Act. Other countries have passed antidiscrimination legislation since then too, including South Africa’s Mental Health Care Act 17 of 2002 and India’s Equality Bill, 2019.

Yet, as we’ve seen, decades after the implementation of the ADA, problems remain. Studies continue to document stigma and discrimination against workers with mental illness. In 2020, a list of the top 10 disabilities in US discrimination claims included depression, anxiety disorder and PTSD. In Australia, a commission concluded back in 2004 that the country’s antidiscrimination legislation had been less effective in helping people with mental illness than those with mobility and sensory disabilities. In the EU, where Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty created a binding agreement to illegalise discrimination based on disabilities, researchers and clinical professionals were quick to point out its vagueness and lack of defined scope. An EU-funded consensus paper from 2010 documented the continued problem of discrimination against employees and job-seekers with mental illness.

Reports such as these call into question whether even a major law like the ADA can adequately address discrimination related to employee mental illness. And they should prompt us to reconsider how best to combat the problem. One question we can ask is: what might limit the impact of such laws in curbing discrimination against people with mental illness, compared with discrimination against people with physical disabilities? Let’s consider three potential answers.

F irst, discriminatory behaviour is not always obvious, and sometimes it is not even intentional. Compared with an employee who uses a wheelchair, it might be easier to dismiss a socially anxious person’s need to work from home. Compared with someone who is getting treatment for cancer, it might be easier to question whether an employee newly diagnosed with bipolar disorder will ever return as a valuable employee after their medical leave. Compared with a trauma-induced concussion, it might be easier to wonder whether a hypersensitivity to noise, related to PTSD, is really legitimate. Mental illnesses and their effects on people’s daily lives are often less apparent to others than the effects of a physical disability.

Second, laws like the ADA work only if people open up about their disabilities. The physical disability community has in the past decades led a cultural shift from exclusion and shame toward inclusivity and empowerment. People with physical disabilities have community, speak up and exercise their rights. Although there are ongoing efforts by people with mental illness to raise awareness about their experiences, many individuals stay quiet due to shame about their own condition or fear of how others will respond.

Even employers who want to hire people with mental illness can be subject to misguided beliefs

Lastly, the public stigma against mental illness bleeds into what people are expected to be able to handle and achieve. While physical disability is commonly perceived as a challenge with movement, mental illness is perceived as a challenge with thinking. Physical disabilities are seen as being caused by accidents or other unfortunate circumstances, while mental illnesses are often incorrectly seen as a choice or an inherent character flaw. Other misconceptions are that mental illness generally is untreatable or renders people violent or unable to work. An employer might therefore deem a person with mental illness unable to meet their job responsibilities, even when this assumption is unfounded.

Antidiscrimination laws are important, but they do not eliminate the tolls of stigma and capitalism. Employers want to make money, and a mental illness can be seen as a financial liability. Even employers who say they want to hire people with mental illness can be subject to misguided beliefs. And even when companies do grant accommodations, they might be limited. Sara, who in addition to struggling with anxiety has long had difficulty with focusing in distracting environments, was recently diagnosed with ADHD. Together with her psychiatrist, she submitted a request to her large corporate employer to work from home on two weekdays of her choosing, which would enable her to better focus on computer tasks – something that for her is much more difficult in a distracting open-office environment. She told me that it took six months for the accommodation request to be processed; in the end, she was allowed to work from home only on Mondays.

If people can develop the compassion needed to understand why ramps should be installed for use by employees with wheelchairs, there must be a way to heighten compassion for those who would benefit from, for example, a less distracting work environment. But history suggests it won’t be enough to make discriminatory practices illegal. It will require a change in perceptions.

F or many employees or job candidates with a mental illness, the prospect of workplaces free of stigma and discrimination may seem unattainable. ‘I cannot say anything definite that helps [reduce discrimination],’ Suzanne tells me. ‘If you keep your head down and do your job, then good people will eventually accept that this person is still fulfilling their job.’ There are, however, scientifically supported strategies that could be used in efforts to reduce mental illness stigma – and, consequently, discrimination – in workplaces. To the frustration of many anti-stigma advocates, these strategies have not yet been widely implemented.

One basic stigma-reducing strategy is based on social contact. Research suggests that people who have regularly interacted with someone who has personal experience with mental illness (such as a family member, friend or colleague) are often less likely to stigmatise and discriminate, and may be more likely to engage in empathic conversations about mental illness with employees. A law like the ADA should in theory have facilitated more social contact: if it freed more employees to disclose their mental illness and ask for reasonable accommodations, their coworkers would have learned that someone can have a mental illness and still be smart and productive. But, again, many people still do not disclose their mental illness (for fear of discrimination or other reasons), and coworkers cannot learn from what is not disclosed.

Educating HR professionals about mental illness could help reduce discriminatory practices

Another promising method for improving attitudes and behaviour toward employees with mental illness is psychoeducation. Broadly speaking, psychoeducation, also known as mental health education or mental health literacy, is a method of teaching what mental health is, why people might develop mental illnesses, and how these illnesses can be prevented and treated. It can also include the sharing of actionable strategies for coping with symptoms and crises, both acutely and preventatively. Psychoeducation incorporates components of group therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy, and is frequently used by psychiatrists and therapists in clinical settings. It was originally developed to support patients with severe mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, and their families.

Excitingly, psychoeducation can also be used to help change the way workers with mental illness are perceived. While it has been most studied among patient groups as a method to reduce symptom severity and increase healthy coping strategies, it has been employed in professional settings too. For example, a systematic review of studies indicated that psychoeducational training for managers can improve their ‘knowledge, attitudes and self-reported behaviour in supporting employees experiencing mental health problems’. One study reported that managers who received psychoeducational training felt more confident in talking with employees about mental illness and were more likely to reach out to an employee who had an extended absence due to mental illness or stress. Researchers have also suggested that educating human-resources professionals about mental illness could help reduce discriminatory practices. Recently, the implementation of psychoeducational programmes in six companies within high-stress industries (such as hospitality) was found to reduce ratings of stress among workers and mental illness stigmatisation among workers.

The results from these studies are encouraging. Because psychoeducation can be delivered virtually in group settings and can be led by non-experts who’ve received appropriate training, it is also a cost-effective, scalable method. (Full disclosure: last year, I founded a nonprofit that has started to offer psychoeducational services in schools and other organisations.) But, for now, this approach appears to be rarely deployed in workplaces outside of research studies.

T he psychoeducation programmes in these studies typically take place in weekly, one- to two-hour sessions, lasting from a few weeks to months, and they are most often led by mental health professionals. They tend to focus on teaching people about and facilitating conversations on the causes, types, presentation and treatments of mental illness. The programmes often spend a considerable amount of time debunking common myths about mental health, and provide exercises to enable participants to help themselves or others with a mental illness. These exercises might include cognitive-behavioural tools for ‘fact-checking’ thought patterns, problem-solving skills, daily mood journals, and breathing exercises. A major goal is to challenge ideas about mental illness that underlie stigma and discrimination.

In a 2022 policy brief on mental health at work, the WHO argued for greater efforts to improve mental health literacy and support employees with mental illness. Psychoeducational programmes could be a prime tool for pursuing these goals, a staple for companies that aim to comply with antidiscrimination law and improve employee wellbeing. If psychoeducation helps key stakeholders, such as employers and human-resources professionals, to treat employees and job candidates with greater understanding, that might also lead to fewer sick days, enhanced productivity and more employment among people with mental illness. Perhaps work itself will become a less prominent driver of stress.

Some companies currently provide offerings such as unlimited vacation days, meditation apps or yoga sessions as a way to show support for employees’ wellbeing. But these sorts of benefits likely do little to address stigma or discrimination in workplaces. Moreover, implicit in this strategy is the idea that mental illness is a problem that can and should be addressed by individual employees, without putting broader workplace conventions and beliefs into question.

‘In contrast to my mental illness, my concussion was immediately accommodated’

While a severe version of a state such as psychosis or mania can be devastating for the person experiencing it, most people who have a mental health condition are not dealing with crises from day to day. Yes, someone with mental illness might be more easily distracted, more sensitive to noise or less social, but that doesn’t mean that their symptoms will inevitably hamper their job performance. What does hamper performance is when companies neglect to provide reasonable accommodations, even when studies suggest that the benefits associated with providing such accommodations outweigh the costs.

Wouldn’t most companies be inclined to provide structural and logistical support for an employee who suddenly became paraplegic, or who suffered another disabling physical ailment? One former tech industry employee told me that she saw a marked difference in how her leave-taking was received depending on whether it was mental health-related or not. ‘A while after returning from my mental health leave,’ she says, ‘I got a concussion for which I needed partial leave. The symptoms I had were so similar to my PTSD but, in contrast to my mental illness, my concussion was immediately accommodated with a 90-day medical leave and temporary part-time work schedule without any stigma.’ Sara, too, noticed a stark difference when she needed medical leave and other task-related accommodations to recover from shoulder surgery, as opposed to accommodations related to her mental health.

The evidence of ongoing and unnecessary burdens on workers with mental illness calls for honest consideration of what previous antidiscrimination measures have and have not achieved. Employers and governments have yet to fulfil the promise of landmark antidiscrimination laws for the many millions of people who go to work with mental health conditions. Fortunately, there is hope that evidence-backed approaches such as psychoeducational programmes could – if more widely embraced – provide an effective tool for making workplaces fairer and more supportive.

Stories and literature

Her blazing world

Margaret Cavendish’s boldness and bravery set 17th-century society alight, but is she a feminist poster-girl for our times?

Francesca Peacock

Ecology and environmental sciences

To take care of the Earth, humans must recognise that we are both a part of the animal kingdom and its dominant power

Hugh Desmond

Folk music was never green

Don’t be swayed by the sound of environmental protest: these songs were first sung in the voice of the cutter, not the tree

Richard Smyth

Nations and empires

A United States of Europe

A free and unified Europe was first imagined by Italian radicals in the 19th century. Could we yet see their dream made real?

Fernanda Gallo

On Jewish revenge

What might a people, subjected to unspeakable historical suffering, think about the ethics of vengeance once in power?

Shachar Pinsker

Learning to be happier

In order to help improve my students’ mental health, I offered a course on the science of happiness. It worked – but why?

Race, ethnicity, and discrimination at work: a new analysis of legal protections and gaps in all 193 UN countries

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion

ISSN : 2040-7149

Article publication date: 1 February 2023

Issue publication date: 18 December 2023

While only one aspect of fulfilling equal rights, effectively addressing workplace discrimination is integral to creating economies, and countries, that allow for everyone's full and equal participation.

Design/methodology/approach

Labor, anti-discrimination, and other relevant pieces of legislation were identified through the International Labor Organization's NATLEX database, supplemented with legislation identified through country websites. For each country, two researchers independently coded legislation and answered questions about key policy features. Systematic quality checks and outlier verifications were conducted.

More than 1 in 5 countries do not explicitly prohibit racial discrimination in employment. 54 countries fail to prohibit unequal pay based on race. 107 countries prohibit racial and/or ethnic discrimination but do not explicitly require employers to take preventive measures against discrimination. The gaps are even larger with respect to multiple and intersectional discrimination. 112 countries fail to prohibit discrimination based on both migration status and race and/or ethnicity; 103 fail to do so for foreign national origin and race and/or ethnicity.

Practical implications

Both recent and decades-old international treaties and agreements require every country globally to uphold equal rights regardless of race. However, specific national legislation that operationalizes these commitments and prohibits discrimination in the workplace is essential to their impact. This research highlights progress and gaps that must be addressed.

Originality/value

This is the first study to measure legal protections against employment discrimination based on race and ethnicity in all 193 UN countries. This study also examines protection in all countries from discrimination on the basis of characteristics that have been used in a number of settings as a proxy for racial/ethnic discrimination and exclusion, including SES, migration status, and religion.

• Discrimination
• Migration status

Heymann, J. , Varvaro-Toney, S. , Raub, A. , Kabir, F. and Sprague, A. (2023), "Race, ethnicity, and discrimination at work: a new analysis of legal protections and gaps in all 193 UN countries", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion , Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 16-34. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-01-2022-0027

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Jody Heymann, Sheleana Varvaro-Toney, Amy Raub, Firooz Kabir and Aleta Sprague

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

Work plays a fundamental role in shaping the conditions of people's lives. Earnings from employment are the predominant source of income for most people; income in turn shapes access to a wide range of necessities including housing, transportation, and food, as well as non-essentials that impact quality of life and access to opportunities. In many countries where health insurance is partial or incomplete, work shapes access to healthcare. And by affecting where families live and whether caregivers can take time off to meet the developmental needs of children, the availability and conditions of work can have profound impacts on child development and education. Likewise, as adults age, as well as at the end of life, work histories can and do shape retirement income in most countries, and working conditions influence the ability of adults to care for aging family members.

As a result, when discrimination impedes work opportunities or results in loss of income, the consequences affect not only the quality and equality of work lives, but also of many other spheres of life. Moreover, when certain groups of workers routinely face bias in the workplace, this discrimination widens other inequalities in the economy, with ripple effects that have impacts on health, housing, children's access to quality education, and equal rights more broadly.

Given these vast and intergenerational impacts, the extent and persistence of workplace discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity worldwide—which occurs at each stage of employment, including hiring, promotions, demotions, pay, working conditions, and terminations—represents a significant threat to both individual households and societies as a whole, as well as a clear violation of fundamental human rights. Moreover, studies in countries around the world have documented how employment discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity commonly intersects with discrimination based on migration status, socioeconomic status, gender, and other characteristics, compounding other forms of inequality. While only one aspect of fulfilling equal rights, effectively addressing workplace discrimination is integral to creating economies, and countries, that allow for everyone's full and equal participation.

In this article, we review the research evidence on employment discrimination based on race and on the impact of anti-discrimination legislation, and then present the methods and results of the first study of anti-discrimination protections in all 193 UN countries.

Discrimination in hiring

A wide range of studies have demonstrated racial and ethnic discrimination in hiring, including studies in which researchers submit fictitious CVs and applications that reflect similar credentials and experience, but that vary with respect to photos, names, and/or experiences suggestive of different racial or ethnic identities. These “correspondence studies,” which improved on prior methods of testing for racial discrimination by making candidates substantively identical except for markers of race/ethnicity ( Bertrand and Duflo, 2017 ), find that presumed race/ethnicity influences the likelihood that a particular candidate receives an invitation to interview, with those representing historically marginalized racial or ethnic groups consistently receiving fewer callbacks ( Baert, 2018 ).

Other research approaches include direct interviews with hiring managers and simulations in which study participants rate the strength of hypothetical job candidates based on their photos and descriptions of their experience and characteristics where, again, the principal aspect varied is race/ethnicity, either on its own or together with intersectional characteristics like migration status or gender.

These research approaches also document the persistence of discrimination in hiring across jobs and geographies. For example, research in Nigeria found that managers of both public and private organizations were more likely to hire applicants from their own ethnic group ( Adisa et al. , 2017 ). A study spanning five European countries—Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and the United Kingdom—demonstrated discrimination in the hiring of Black and Middle Eastern men ( Di Stasio and Larsen, 2020 ).

Discrimination based on common proxies for race or ethnicity can likewise shape job prospects. In Canada, for example, migrants from sub-Saharan Africa report that their accents can be a barrier to becoming employed and having career mobility ( Creese, 2010 ), while in the US, numerous court cases have illustrated how Black women commonly face barriers to employment because their natural hairstyles are found to violate “neutral” grooming codes ( Greene, 2017 ).

Discrimination is also often intersectional. In Germany, a 2020 study found that women with Turkish names were less likely than those with German names to receive interview invitations, and this gap widened further for women wearing headscarves ( Weichselbaumer, 2020 ). Similarly, in a Mexico study, both marital status and skin color affected women's chance of receiving an interview ( Arceo-Gomez and Campos-Vasquez, 2014 ). In Belgium, women from minority ethnic groups were less likely to be considered for a “high-cognitive demanding job” than either native women or minority ethnic men ( Derous and Pepermans, 2019 ).

Discrimination in promotions

Studies have also documented racial and ethnic discrimination in promotions across professions, from police forces to law firms to universities ( Tomlinson, 2019 ; Zempi, 2020 ). From Finland to South Africa to the United Kingdom and the United States, workers from marginalized racial and ethnic groups report discrimination in promotion, consistent with the research evidence based on multilevel multivariate studies of discrimination, as well as based on implicit bias testing of supervisors ( Hatch et al. , 2016 ; Mayiya et al. , 2019 ; Stalker, 1994 ; Yu, 2020 ; Zempi, 2020 ). In Canada, research has documented that visible minorities have less upward mobility even after controlling for education, work experience, time with the employer, and other factors ( Javdani, 2020 ), including both supply- and demand-side factors ( Javdani and McGee, 2018 ; Yap, 2010 ; Yap and Konrad, 2009 ).

Aside from direct discrimination in promotions, employer practices that evaluate employee conduct differently or otherwise deny opportunities for professional advancement based on race or ethnicity can affect opportunities within the workplace. For example, a study that experimentally changed the race/ethnicity of an employee in a photo while asking study participants to evaluate their performance demonstrated that simple acts such as being late for work led to a significantly greater negative impact on the appraisal of hypothetical employees when the photo showed a Black or Latinx employee than when the photo showed a white employee ( Luksyte et al. , 2013 ). Visible minorities are also less likely to receive training opportunities that can influence upward mobility in the labor force ( Dostie and Javdani, 2020 ).

Discrimination in terminations

Both direct discrimination by employers and structural discrimination that cuts across economies can make workers from marginalized racial and ethnic groups more vulnerable to terminations. For example, studies have found that during economic downturns, immigrants and workers from historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups face heightened risks of labor market discrimination and job loss ( Couch and Fairlie, 2010 ; Lessem and Nakajima, 2019 ). Moreover, the consequences of past discrimination and exclusion from economic opportunities mean that workers from underrepresented groups are less likely to have seniority within a given organization or company. As a result, in addition to direct racial/ethnic discrimination that may lead to higher rates of termination, “last hired, first fired” policies can result in indirect discrimination against workers from historically excluded groups.

Impacts of discrimination in hiring, job positions, and promotions on pay inequality

Discrimination in hiring can impact initial salaries and level and type of starting position. When individuals are hired into jobs below their skill level because of bias based on race and ethnicity, they earn less than they would have earned had there been no discrimination ( Coleman, 2003 ). Likewise, when discrimination results in the overrepresentation of workers from historically marginalized racial/ethnic groups in limited employment capacities, including temporary or seasonal jobs, gaps in both pay and benefits further widen. Survey research across 30 European countries showed that even after controlling for education, experience, occupation, and other categories, racial and ethnic minorities were more likely to end up in jobs where their skills were underutilized, leading to lower wages than if they were in a position more matched to their skills and offering reduced pathways for advancement ( Rafferty, 2020 ). In Chile, qualitative research has found that Peruvian migrants simultaneously experience limited employment trajectory due to their external migrant status alongside racialization by local Chileans who perceive them to be more fit for low-status and low-income positions due to assumptions about their physical and cultural traits ( Mora and Undurraga, 2013 ).

Direct pay discrimination

Even for the same job position, the “unexplained” wage differential after taking experience into account gives an indication of the amount of the wage differential that could be due to discrimination and bias. One-half to two-thirds of wage differences across racial and ethnic groups in some studies have been estimated to be due to bias ( Drydakis, 2012 ; Piazzalunga, 2015 ). While the data clearly demonstrates the existence of bias and discrimination in pay against specific groups in a range of countries, there has not been a comprehensive look across countries and racial/ethnic groups to document in detail when and where the wage gaps are greatest and lowest, before and after taking into account the impact of bias throughout the work lifecourse.

The documented and potential impacts of national laws addressing discrimination

Individual countries that have passed antidiscrimination laws have seen improvements including greater equality in hiring and lowering of wage disparities ( Leck et al. , 1995 ). While antidiscrimination laws alone do not eliminate discrimination in hiring, pay, promotions, or terminations, studies both across countries and across populations have demonstrated that antidiscrimination laws can make a difference. In Canada, for example, studies of the Employment Equity Act found that the share of visible minorities who were employed in the private sector increased to much closer to the percentage of the population following the law's adoption ( Agocs, 2002 ; Leck and Saunders, 1992 ). In the United States, studies have found that antidiscrimination laws contributed to wage and income increases for Black workers ( Collins, 2003 ; Donohue and Heckman, 1991 ) and a narrowing of the racial/ethnic pay gap ( Chay, 1998 ).

These findings on laws' impacts on employment outcomes by race parallel those observed for other groups of marginalized workers. For example, one study of 141 countries found that laws prohibiting gender discrimination in employment increased women's labor force participation in formal jobs ( del Mar Alonso-Almeida, 2014 ), while in the UK, legislation guaranteeing equal pay and non-discrimination in employment on the basis of sex resulted in a 19.4% increase in women's earnings and a 17% increase in women's employment rates relative to men's ( Zabalza and Zafiris, 1985 ). Moreover, explicitly prohibiting all forms of workplace discrimination matters to norms. In addition to their practical or applied value, laws prohibiting discrimination have important expressive value that can shape workplace expectations as well as societal views of equality more broadly, with the potential to affect rates of both explicit and implicit bias ( Sunstein, 1996 ). At the same time, the past several decades of antidiscrimination law have revealed important gaps to address. First, as many of the studies cited in the previous section illustrated, racial and ethnic discrimination commonly co-occurs with discrimination based on migration status, foreign national origin, social class, and other characteristics, highlighting the cumulative and often intersectional impacts of key facets of identity on work-related experiences around the world. Clearly banning all common grounds of discrimination, including those used as proxies for race or ethnicity or that commonly intersect with race or ethnicity, is a critical first step.

Second, prohibitions of indirect discrimination can offer important protection against racial/ethnic discrimination, including in instances where discrimination based on an unprotected ground has disparate impacts on the basis of race or ethnicity. This is true both for common grounds of discrimination that would ideally be explicitly covered by domestic labor laws (as they are by international treaties, e.g. national origin) ( Demetriou, 2016 ), as well as proxies for racial/ethnic discrimination that are not generally addressed on their own (e.g. accents and hairstyles) ( Justesen, 2016 ). In contrast, when discrimination laws take an overly formal approach to discrimination that only covers acts that were direct or intentional, they fail to account for the extensive evidence demonstrating that policies and practices that are racially neutral on their face may have disproportionate consequences for workers from historically marginalized groups.

Third and finally, while protections against employment discrimination are essential, more attention must be paid to implementation. While a range of actions are needed, evidence shows that having legal protections in place against retaliation may increase reporting rates by reassuring workers that their careers will be protected if they report discrimination ( Bergman et al. , 2002 ; Gorod, 2007 ; Keenan, 1990 ; Pillay et al. , 2018 ).

This is the first study to examine legislation in all 193 UN countries to map the extent to which each country in the world has protections against racial and ethnic discrimination in hiring, promotions, training, demotions, and terminations, as well as whether they proactively support implementation through clear legislative prohibitions of retaliation for reporting. Further, we examine to what extent countries not only address direct discrimination based on race/ethnicity, but also indirect racial/ethnic discrimination and/or direct discrimination based on grounds that can serve as proxies depending on the historical and societal context for racial discrimination, including religion, migration status, and socioeconomic status. Further, we highlight examples where countries explicitly address intersectionality. Finally, we examine whether there were gains over the past five years in the number of countries that are prohibiting each type of discrimination.

Methodology

Data source.

We constructed a database of prohibitions against discrimination in private sector labor in all 193 UN member states as of January 2021. Labor, anti-discrimination, and other relevant pieces of legislation were identified through the International Labor Organization's NATLEX database, supplemented with legislation identified through country websites. A coding framework was developed to systematically capture key policy features. This coding framework was reviewed by researchers, lawyers, and other leaders working on employment discrimination and tested on a subset of countries before database coding commenced.

For each country and protected characteristic studied, two researchers independently read legislation in its original language or a translation and used the coding framework to assess whether legislation specifically prohibited discrimination in each aspect of work or broadly, whether there were any exceptions to prohibitions of discrimination based on employer characteristics, and whether there were specific provisions in place to support effective implementation. In countries where anti-discrimination protections are legislated subnationally, the lowest level of protection across states or provinces was captured. Answers were then reconciled to minimize human error. When the two researchers could not arrive at an agreement based on the codebook framework, the full coding team met to discuss, and the coding framework was updated to reflect the decision. When updates were made, countries that had already been coded were checked for consistency with the update.

Once coding was complete, systematic quality checks were conducted of variables that proved challenging for researchers during the coding process. Randomized quality checks were conducted of variables that were more straightforward, checking first twenty countries to ensure no errors were identified and a larger subset of countries if there were errors. Finally, outlier verifications globally and by region or country income level were conducted for all variables. In order to assess whether legislative provisions have strengthened over time, similar methods were used to construct measures of laws in place as of August 2016.

Strength of prohibitions of discrimination

We examined legislation across six areas: hiring, pay, training, promotions and/or demotions, termination, and harassment. For each area, we assessed the strength of protection against racial and ethnic discrimination. We classified countries as having a “specific prohibition of racial or ethnic discrimination” if legislation either: 1) explicitly addressed racial and ethnic discrimination in that aspect of work (“racial discrimination in hiring is prohibited”); or 2) broadly prohibited racial discrimination at work (“there shall be no discrimination at work based on race”) and guaranteed equality in the specific area (“no one shall be discriminated against in hiring decisions”). For equal pay, we further distinguished between countries that guaranteed equal pay for equal work and those that had a stronger provision guaranteeing equal pay for work of equal value which would prohibit differences in pay when there is occupational segregation.

Countries were classified as having a “broad prohibition of racial or ethnic discrimination” if legislation broadly prohibited discrimination based on race or ethnicity, but did not address specific aspects of work. Countries were coded as having a “general prohibition of discrimination” if legislation did not explicitly address race or ethnicity but banned discrimination in an aspect of work for all workers. “No explicit prohibition” denotes when legislation did not take any of the approaches above. We separately analyzed whether prohibitions of discrimination included indirect discrimination, which would protect against seemingly neutral practices or criteria that have disparate impacts across race and/or ethnicity.

Intersecting characteristics

In many countries racial and/or ethnic discrimination is deeply intertwined with other characteristics, including social class, migration status, foreign national origin, and religion. Accordingly, we assessed whether laws prohibit discrimination based on both race and/or ethnicity and these intersecting characteristics.

Employer responsibilities

We assessed whether legislation required employers to take measures to prevent racial or ethnic discrimination in the workplace. In doing so, we distinguished between legislation that made it a general responsibility and legislation that outlined specific steps for employers to take. These specific prevention steps included requirements to create a code of conduct to prevent racial discrimination, establish disciplinary procedures, raise awareness of anti-discrimination laws, or conduct trainings to prevent discrimination.

Prohibitions of retaliation

To capture the extent to which provisions effectively covered the range of forms that retaliation can take, we coded the protections for individuals who reported discrimination, filed a complaint, or initiated litigation (any adverse action, disciplinary action, or retaliatory dismissal only) and whether prohibitions of retaliation covered all workers participating in the investigation.

Firm-based exceptions

In some countries, prohibitions of discrimination are weakened by provisions that exempt certain employers. We captured exceptions that broadly applied to prohibitions of discrimination or specifically in different aspects of work based on firm type for small businesses, charities and non-profits, and religious organizations.

All analyses were conducted using Stata MP 14.2. Differences were assessed by region using the Pearson's chi-square statistics. Region was categorized according to the World Bank's country and lending groups as of 2020 [ 1 ].

Globally, 153 countries prohibited at least some form of racial and/or ethnic discrimination at work in 2021, a modest increase from 148 countries in 2016 ( Figure 1 ). Three of the countries introducing these new prohibitions were in Sub-Saharan Africa (Mali, South Sudan, and Zambia), one in Europe (Iceland), and one in the South Pacific (Tuvalu). An additional five countries expanded existing prohibitions of racial and/or ethnic discrimination either to broadly prohibit discrimination at work in addition to specific prohibitions in certain areas (Barbados and Honduras) or to comprehensively cover discrimination at work in all areas, as well as indirect racial and/or ethnic discrimination (Andorra, Burundi, and Sao Tome and Principe).

Gaps in prohibitions are found in every region of the world. Countries in the Americas were the most likely to prohibit at least some form of racial discrimination at work, followed closely by Europe and Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. In each of these regions, only ten percent or fewer of countries lacked at least some form of prohibition. In contrast, a majority of countries lack prohibitions of racial discrimination in East Asia and Pacific and South Asia ( Figure 2 ). Differences were statistically significant between these two regions and the three regions with the highest levels of prohibitions ( p  < 0.01).

In 2016, 107 countries had a law that explicitly prohibited race-based discrimination in hiring. That number increased to 115 countries in 2021 (see Figure 2 ). An additional 27 countries in 2016 and 29 countries in 2021 had either a broad prohibition of race discrimination or a general prohibition of discrimination in hiring. Prohibitions of racial/ethnic discrimination in hiring were most common in Europe and Central Asia (91%) followed by sub-Saharan Africa (62%). In all other regions, fewer than half of countries prohibited racial discrimination in hiring ( Figure 3 ).

Training and promotions/demotions

Eighty countries in 2016 and 88 countries in 2021 prohibited discrimination based on race in training. Eighty-three countries in 2016 prohibited discrimination in promotions and demotions. In 2021, this number increased to 90 countries.

While less than three-quarters of countries prohibited racial discrimination in training in Europe and Central Asia (74%), these prohibitions were still more common than in every other region. Similar trends were found for promotions and/or demotions.

The number of countries guaranteeing equal pay for work of equal value, increased from 34 in 2016 to 41 in 2021. Overall, including guarantees both of equal pay for work of equal value and equal pay for equal work, 91 countries in 2016 and 96 countries in 2021 guaranteed equal pay across racial and ethnic groups. More countries in Europe and Central Asia (77%) prohibited racial discrimination in pay than those in sub-Saharan Africa (56%), the Middle East and North Africa (27%), and South Asia (27%).

Terminations

In 2016, 106 countries prohibited racial discrimination in terminating employment. That number increased to 112 countries in 2021. Prohibitions of racial/ethnic discrimination in terminations were most common in Europe and Central Asia (74%), Sub-Saharan Africa (71%), and the Americas (60%). In contrast, less than a third of countries prohibited racial discrimination in terminations in East Asia and Pacific (30%) and South Asia (25%).

Only 66 countries explicitly prohibited workplace harassment based on race/ethnicity in 2016. By 2021, that number had increased to 72. Only a minority of countries prohibited racial and/or ethnic harassment in all regions except Europe and Central Asia.

Indirect discrimination

Sixty-three countries prohibited indirect discrimination based on race and/or ethnicity in 2016, increasing to 71 countries in 2021. Only a third of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, a fifth of those in East Asia and Pacific and the Americas, and an eighth of those in South Asia explicitly addressed indirect racial/ethnic discrimination. No countries in the Middle East and North Africa did so.

Intertwined, multiple and intersectional discrimination

Prohibitions of discrimination based on both race and/or ethnicity and religion were widespread: 151 countries prohibited at least some aspect of workplace discrimination based on both characteristics in 2021. However, only 117 countries prohibited at least some aspect of workplace discrimination based on both race and/or ethnicity and social class. Even fewer prohibited discrimination based on both race and/or ethnicity and foreign national origin (90 countries) or migration status (81 countries).

Countries in sub-Saharan Africa were most likely to prohibit discrimination based on race and social class, as well as discrimination based on race and foreign national origin. While prohibitions of racial discrimination and religion, social class, or foreign national origin were comparatively high in the Americas, prohibitions of discrimination based on migration status were markedly lower. While nearly two-thirds of countries in Europe and Central Asia addressed migration status alongside race, only half prohibited discrimination based on foreign national origin ( Figure 4 ).

Finally, a minority of countries explicitly addressed the concepts of intersectionality or multiple discrimination in their discrimination legislation. Kenya's National Gender and Equality Commission Act recognizes intersectionality in defining marginalized groups to be people “disadvantaged by discrimination on one or more of the grounds in Article 27(4) of the Constitution” which includes “race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth” ( 2012 ). Australia's Racial Discrimination Act prohibits “acts done for 2 or more reasons” where “one of the reasons is the race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin of a person” ( 1975 ). In Macedonia, the Law on Prevention of and Protection Against Discrimination defines multiple discrimination to be a severe form of discrimination ( 2010 ).

Only a smaller minority of countries (38) took the additional step of requiring employers to take one or more specific measures to prevent racial discrimination. An additional 8 countries had general language requiring employers to take preventative steps, without specifying what those steps would look like.

Protections in the event of discrimination

In the event that discrimination occurred and employees filed a report or initiated litigation, a modest majority of countries took the important step of prohibiting retaliation against the employee who filed the complaint. Seventy-eight countries prohibited employers from retaliating in any way, an additional 7 prohibited harassment or any disciplinary action, and 26 only prohibited dismissing the employee ( Table 1 ). A similar number of countries (76) protected employees who participated in investigations from being retaliated against.

Are any employers exempt?

When countries had laws in place prohibiting discrimination, they overwhelmingly applied to all employers. In rare cases small businesses were exempt, including in 5 countries in the case of hiring, 4 countries in the case of training and terminations, and 3 countries in the case of pay and promotions and demotions ( Table 2 ). Charities and nonprofits had similarly uncommon exemptions. The group that was most frequently exempted from these prohibitions of racial discrimination were religious organizations. Fourteen countries exempted religious organizations from bans on discriminations based on race in hiring, training, and terminations, 13 exempted religious organizations in terms of racial discrimination in promotions and demotions, and 9 in the case of pay.

Around the world there has been an explosion of demonstrations and attention to the critical issue of racial discrimination over the past two years, building on the many decades of activism urging action on racial injustices that came before. And while catalyzed by state violence, these recent demonstrations also clearly took aim at the deeply entrenched economic disparities across race that persist across countries, which were on full display as workers from marginalized racial and ethnic groups lost jobs in historic numbers two months into the pandemic.

In response, governments and companies worldwide pledged action. Ensuring that discrimination is clearly prohibited in every country is an essential first step both for changing norms and attitudes and for giving people who are discriminated against more tools to combat the discrimination. Modest progress has been made over the past five years in increasing guarantees of equality, regardless of race and ethnicity, around the world. Between 2016 and 2021, the number of countries legally prohibiting racial and ethnic discrimination in the workplace increased and the strength of provisions improved. Eight more countries prohibited discrimination in hiring and 6 more in terminations. Seven more countries guaranteed equal pay for work of equal value based on race. Moreover, 8 more countries prohibited indirect discrimination based on race and ethnicity.

Yet unconscionable gaps remain. More than 1 in 5 countries have no prohibition of workplace discrimination based on race. Moreover, more than 1 in 4 countries, 54 in total, have no prohibition against racial discrimination in pay. Furthermore, more than a dozen countries provide for exceptions to the prohibition of racial discrimination for religious organizations.

Many countries also fail to offer adequate legal protection against both direct racial discrimination and other forms of discrimination that often occur simultaneously, have disparate impacts on the basis of race, and/or serve as proxies for racial discrimination. For example, in many countries around the world, marginalized racial and ethnic groups are also disproportionately poor due to historic and ongoing economic exclusion. In settings where racial and ethnic discrimination is prohibited but social class-based discrimination remains allowed, class-based discrimination can be used to practically discriminate based on race and ethnicity, particularly if indirect discrimination is likewise unaddressed in the law. Yet 76 countries fail to prohibit discrimination based on both social class and race and/or ethnicity; 121 lack protections against indirect discrimination; and 58 countries lack either protection.

Similarly, while discrimination based both on race/ethnicity and migration status is pervasive, many countries lack comprehensive protections addressing these and related grounds. The evidence illustrating why stronger laws are needed is compelling. For example, a study on labor force participation in Western Europe found that migrants from sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia earned over 20% less income than Western European internal migrants. Compared to internal Western European migrants, external migrants from MENA and sub-Saharan Africa regions were also less likely to be employed and part of the labor force in Europe ( Kislev, 2017 ). National laws that formally and explicitly prohibit multiple forms of discrimination may help protect more individuals and reduce inequalities in employment opportunities. Yet, 112 countries fail to prohibit discrimination based on both migration status and race and/or ethnicity and 103 fail to do so for foreign national origin and race and/or ethnicity.

Finally, even when legal protections are in place, it is crucial that there are both prevention and enforcement mechanisms. 107 countries prohibited racial and ethnic discrimination but did not place any explicit requirements on employers to try to prevent discrimination. Only 38 countries required employers to take specific steps and only an additional 8 required employers generally to work towards prevention.

The critical need to accelerate progress

The significant overall gaps in protections, alongside the findings that the expansion over the past five years of laws prohibiting racial discrimination at work has been slow, underscores the need to accelerate the pace of change on legal reforms—as a matter of human rights, an important determinant of individual and household incomes, and a prerequisite for countries to reach their full potential. Ensuring equal opportunities in employment on the basis of race and ethnicity has vast implications for individuals, families, and their broader communities. A significant body of literature has documented how access to employment, job quality, and adequate income shape mental and physical health, overall life satisfaction, and the ability to meet material needs ( Calvo et al ., 2015 ; Murphy and Athansou, 1999 ). When work opportunities are unevenly distributed by race due to both individual and structural discrimination, these disparities drive broader inequalities.

Moreover, all countries have agreed to do so. The Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by all UN member states in 2015, commit governments to “empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status” and “[e]nsure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard” ( United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015 ). By adopting the SDGs, countries worldwide agreed to realize these commitments by 2030. To meet that timeline, accelerating the pace of change on fundamental anti-discrimination protections is essential.

This builds on a long history of international agreements guaranteeing equal rights regardless of race or ethnicity, including in the field of employment. Many of these have been in place for decades. Foremost among them is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ( United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1965 ), which has been ratified by 182 countries ( United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2021c ), declares that States Parties have a duty to “prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of (…) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration” ( United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1965 ).

In fact, nearly every major global human rights agreement commits countries to treating all people equally regardless of race or ethnicity. These include, among others, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted as the first global agreement of the United Nations and considered binding on all countries ( United Nations General Assembly, 1948 ), the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, a binding treaty ratified by 171 countries ( United Nations General Assembly, 1966 ; United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2021b ), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by 173 countries ( United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1966 , 2021a ).

Finally, beyond its importance to individuals, families, and communities and deep intrinsic value as a matter of human rights, ending racial discrimination in the labor market has significant implications for economies and companies. For example, in the US alone, estimates from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco find that closing the racial gaps in employment-to-population ratios between 1990 and 2019 would have boosted 2019 GDP by over $150 billion ( Buckman et al. , 2021 ), while other research has forecast that closing the racial earnings gap by 2050 would boost GDP by 22% ( Turner, 2018 ). Likewise, a significant body of evidence demonstrates that greater racial and ethnic diversity within companies, including on boards, improves their financial performance and degree of innovation ( Erhardt et al. , 2003 ; Herring, 2009 ; Cheong and Sinnakkannu, 2014 ; Thomas et al. , 2016 ; Hunt et al. , 2018 ). For example, a study of 492 firms found a strong relationship between ethnic and linguistic diversity and total revenue, dividends, sales and productivity ( Churchill, 2019 ). Particularly as more companies work and hire trans-nationally, the extent to which laws in all countries prohibit racial and ethnic discrimination at work matters to overall performance.

Research limitations and the need for a broader research agenda on policies and outcomes

While this study provides an important first look at prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination at work in all the world's countries, it has important limitations. This study did not quantify laws related to intersectional discrimination, including, among others, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Yet as past scholarship and case law have shown, addressing each individual basis for discrimination still may not be enough to reach the unique forms of discrimination that arise when multiple grounds of discrimination intersect, particularly if workers are required to prove each of their discrimination claims discretely and sequentially. Explicit protections against intersectional discrimination, and judiciaries willing and trained to apply them, may be needed ( Crenshaw, 1989 ; Fredman, 2016 ).

Future research should also examine prohibitions of discrimination in working conditions, given the evidence of inequalities. For example, research has shown that non-Hispanic Black workers and foreign-born Hispanic workers are disproportionately hired into jobs with the higher injury risk and increased prevalence of work-related disability ( Seabury et al. , 2017 ). Another study on COVID-19 job exposures found that Latinx and Black frontline workers were overrepresented in lower status occupations associated with higher risk and less adequate COVID-19 protections, contributing to the higher prevalence of infection in these populations ( Goldman et al. , 2021 ).

Further, we need to measure laws that reduce bias in informal as well as formal mechanisms that play a large role in the recruitment, hiring, and promotion processes, as well as in determining working conditions. Evidence has shown social networks and informal relationships can not only impact recruitment, but also can contribute to inequities in salary negotiations and mentorship at the hiring stage ( Seidel et al. , 2000 ; Spafford et al. , 2006 ).

These expansions on the law and policy data presented here should be part of a broader research agenda on racial equity in the global labor market that examines not only which laws and policies are in place but what impacts they are having. As with other policy areas, developing longitudinal quantitative, globally comparative measures of anti-discrimination laws helps make it possible for researchers to rigorously analyze the relationship between policy change and outcomes, producing actionable evidence about “what works” across countries ( Raub et al. , 2022 ). However, even with the new policy data we have developed, improvements in outcomes data will be essential to measure the impact globally of advances and legal gaps. Globally comparative data on experiences of racial discrimination across countries which is essential for measuring the impact of legal change globally has been limited to date for several reasons including the wide range across countries of who suffers racial and ethnic discrimination and the variability of country willingness to collect data.

Addressing discrimination: a global responsibility

While the workplace is only one location where racial and ethnic discrimination occurs, it is a crucial one. Ensuring equal opportunity to be hired and equal treatment in pay, working conditions, and promotions together influences whether individuals can lead full work lives, contribute to household income, and not only meet basic needs but also invest in the future of their families and communities. Moreover, global agreements have committed countries around the world to combatting discrimination based on race and ethnicity, including in the specific context of employment.

For these international instruments to have full impact, however, specific country-level legislation that operationalizes their commitments and prohibits discrimination in the workplace is essential. To accelerate progress toward ending racial and ethnic discrimination in employment worldwide—a basic human right—we need to monitor the steps countries are taking to address and eliminate discrimination in all aspects of work, including hiring, promotion, pay, and terminations. While legal guarantees are not enough—and norm change, leadership, and social movements are likewise critical to successfully eliminating discrimination both at work and more broadly—clear stipulations that companies are not allowed to discriminate are essential, as are strong and regularly updated accountability mechanisms.

Do countries prohibit racial and/or ethnic discrimination in all aspects of work?

Number of countries prohibiting racial and/or ethnic discrimination at work by aspect of work and year

Percentage of countries prohibiting racial and/or ethnic discrimination at work by region and aspect of work

Number of countries prohibiting at least some discrimination at work based on race and/or ethnicity and intersecting characteristics by region

Countries with prohibitions of retaliation against those reporting discrimination

Countries with exceptions to prohibitions of racial and/or ethnic discrimination

The World Bank's (WB) regional classifications can be found here: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups . While Malta is classified as part of the Middle East and North Africa by the WB, it is also a member of the European Union (EU) and therefore more likely to have legislation reflecting the EU's principles and directives. Thus, we classified Malta as a part of Europe and Central Asia. All other countries retained their WB classifications.

Adisa , T.A. , Osabutey , E.L.C. , Gbadamosi , G. and Mordi , C. ( 2017 ), “ The challenges of employee resourcing: the perceptions of managers in Nigeria ”, The Career Development International , Vol.  22 No.  6 , pp.  703 - 723 .

Agocs , C. ( 2002 ), “ Canada's employment equity legislation and policy, 1987-2000: the gap between policy and practice ”, International Journal of Manpower , Vol.  23 No.  3 , pp.  256 - 276 .

Arceo-Gomez , E. and Campos-Vazquez , R. ( 2014 ), “ Race and marriage in the labor market: a discrimination correspondence study in a developing country ”, American Economic Review , Vol.  104 No.  5 , pp.  376 - 380 .

Baert , S. ( 2018 ), “ Hiring discrimination: an overview of (almost) all correspondence experiments since 2005 ”, Audit Studies: Behind the Scenes with Theory, Method, and Nuance , pp.  63 - 77 .

Bergman , M.E. , Langhout , R.D. , Palmieri , P.A. , Cortina , L.M. and Fitzgerald , L.F. ( 2002 ), “ The (un)reasonableness of reporting: antecedents and consequences of reporting sexual harassment ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol.  87 No.  2 , pp.  230 - 242 .

Bertrand , M. and Duflo , E. ( 2017 ), “ Field experiments on discrimination ”, in Banerjee , A.V. and Duflo , E. (Eds), Handbook of Economic Field Experiments , Elsevier , Amsterdam , Vol.  1 , pp.  309 - 393 .

Buckman , S.R. , Choi , L.Y. , Daly , M.C. and Seitelman , L.M. ( 2021 ), The Economic Gains from Equity , Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper , San Francisco .

Calvo , E. , Mair , C. and Sarkisian , N. ( 2015 ), “ Individual troubles, shared troubles: the multiplicative effect of individual and country-level unemployment on life satisfaction in 95 Nations (1981-2009) ”, Social Forces , Vol.  93 No.  4 , pp.  1625 - 1653 .

Chay , K.Y. ( 1998 ), “ The impact of federal civil rights policy on black economic progress: evidence from the equal employment opportunity act of 1972 ”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review , Vol.  51 No.  4 , pp.  608 - 632 .

Cheong , C.W.H. and Sinnakkannu , J. ( 2014 ), “ Ethnic diversity and firm financial performance: evidence from Malaysia ”, Journal of Asia-Pacific Business , Vol.  15 No.  1 , pp. 73 - 100 , doi: 10.1080/10599231.2014.872973 .

Churchill , S.A. ( 2019 ), “ Firm financial performance in sub-Saharan Africa: the role of ethnic diversity ”, Empirical Economics , Vol.  57 No.  3 , pp.  1 - 14 .

Coleman , M.G. ( 2003 ), “ Job skill and Black male wage discrimination ”, Social Science Quarterly , Vol.  84 , pp.  892 - 906 .

Collins , W.J. ( 2003 ), “ The labor market impact of state-level anti-discrimination laws, 1940-1960 ”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review , Vol.  56 No.  2 , pp.  244 - 272 .

Couch , K.A. and Fairlie , R. ( 2010 ), “ Last hired, first fired? Black-white unemployment and the business cycle ”, Demography , Vol.  47 No.  1 , pp.  227 - 247 .

Creese , G. ( 2010 ), “ Erasing English language competency: African migrants in Vancouver, Canada ”, International Migration and Integration , Vol.  11 No.  3 , pp.  295 - 313 , doi: 10.1007/s12134-010-0139-3 .

Crenshaw , K. ( 1989 ), “ Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics ”, The University of Chicago Legal Forum , p. 139 .

del Mar Alonso-Almeida , M. ( 2014 ), “ Women (and mothers) in the workforce: worldwide factors ”, Women's Studies International Forum , Vol.  44 , pp.  164 - 171 .

Demetriou , C. ( 2016 ), “ The equality body finds that restrictions in access to self-employment for third country nationals amount to unlawful discrimination, Cyprus ”, European Commission , available at: https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/3840-cyprus-the-equality-body-finds-that-restrictions-in-access-to-self-employment-for-third-country-nationals-amount-to-unlawful-discrimination-pdf-95-kb ( accessed 7 January 2022 ).

Derous , E. and Pepermans , R. ( 2019 ), “ Gender discrimination in hiring: intersectional effects with ethnicity and cognitive job demands ”, Archives of Scientific Psychology , Vol.  7 No.  1 , pp.  40 - 49 .

Di Stasio , V. and Larsen , E.N. ( 2020 ), “ The racialized and gendered workplace: applying an intersectional lens to a field experiment on hiring discrimination in five european labor markets ”, Social Psychology Quarterly , Vol.  83 No.  3 , pp.  229 - 250 .

Donohue , J.J. and Heckman , J. ( 1991 ), “ Continuous versus episodic change: the impact of civil rights policy on the economic status of blacks ”, Journal of Economic Literature , Vol.  29 No.  4 , p. 1603 .

Dostie , B. and Javdani , M. ( 2020 ), “ Immigrants and workplace training: evidence from Canadian linked employer–employee data ”, Industrial Relations , Vol.  59 No.  2 , pp.  275 - 315 .

Drydakis , N. ( 2012 ), “ Roma women in Athenian firms: do they face wage bias? ”, Ethnic and Racial Studies , Vol.  35 No.  12 , pp.  2054 - 2074 .

Erhardt , N.L. , Werbel , J.D. and Shrader , C.B. ( 2003 ), “ Board of director diversity and firm financial performance ”, Corporate Governance , Vol.  11 No.  2 , pp. 102 - 111 , doi: 10.1111/1467-8683.00011 .

Fredman , S. ( 2016 ), “ Intersectional discrimination in EU gender equality and non-discrimination law ”, European Commission .

Goldman , N. , Pebley , A.R. , Lee , K. , Andrasfay , T. and Pratt , B. ( 2021 ), “ Racial and ethnic differentials in COVID-19-related job exposures by occupational standing in the US ”, PLoS One , Vol.  16 No.  9 .

Gorod , B.J. ( 2007 ), “ Rejecting reasonableness: a new look at title VII's anti-retaliation provision ”, American University Law Review , Vol.  56 No.  6 , pp.  1469 - 1524 .

Greene , D.W. ( 2017 ), “ Splitting hairs: the Eleventh Circuit’s take on workplace bans against Black women’s natural hair in EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions ”, University of Miami Law Review , Vol.  71 , p. 987 .

Hatch , S.L. , Gazard , B. , Williams , D.R. , Frissa , S. , Goodwin , L. , SelcoH , S.T. and Hotopf , M. ( 2016 ), “ Discrimination and common mental disorder among migrant and ethnic groups: findings from a South East London Community sample ”, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology , Vol.  51 No.  5 , pp.  689 - 701 .

Herring , C. ( 2009 ), “ Does diversity pay?: race, gender, and the business case for diversity ”, American Sociological Review , Vol.  74 No.  2 , pp. 208 - 224 , doi: 10.1177/000312240907400203 .

Hunt , V. , Prince , S. , Dixon-Fyle , S. and Yee , L. ( 2018 ), Delivering Through Diversity , McKinsey & Company , Los Angeles .

Javdani , M. ( 2020 ), “ Visible minorities and job mobility: evidence from a workplace panel survey ”, The Journal of Economic Inequality , Vol.  18 , pp. 491 - 524 .

Javdani , M. and McGee , A. ( 2018 ), “ Labor market mobility and the early-career outcomes of immigrant men ”, IZA Journal of Development and Migration , Vol.  8 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 28 .

Justesen , P. ( 2016 ), “ Board of Equal Treatment ruling on so-called ‘language barrier’, Denmark ”, European Commission , available at: https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/3920-denmark-board-of-equal-treatment-ruling-on-so-called-language-barrier-pdf-131-kb ( accessed 7 January 2022 ).

Keenan , J.P. ( 1990 ), “ Upper-level managers and whistleblowing: determinants of perceptions of company encouragement and information about where to blow the whistle ”, Journal of Business and Psychology , Vol.  5 No.  2 , pp.  223 - 235 .

Kislev , E. ( 2017 ), “ Deciphering the ‘ethnic penalty’ of immigrants in Western Europe: a cross-classified multilevel analysis ”, Social Indicators Research , Vol.  134 No.  2 , pp.  725 - 745 , doi: 10.1007/s11205-016-1451-x .

Law on Prevention of and Protection Against Discrimination ( 2010 ), “ Skopje: constitutional court of the republic of Macedonia ”, No.  82 , available at: https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5aa12ad47.pdf .

Leck , J.D. and Saunders , D.M. ( 1992 ), “ Canada's employment equity act: effects on employee selection ”, Population Research and Policy Review , Vol.  11 No.  1 , p. 21 .

Leck , J.D. , St. Onge, S. and Lalancette , I. ( 1995 ), “ Wage gap changes among organizations subject to the employment equity act ”, Canadian Public Policy , Vol.  21 No.  4 , pp.  387 - 400 .

Lessem , R. and Nakajima , K. ( 2019 ), “ Immigrant wages and recessions: evidence from undocumented Mexicans ”, European Economic Review , Vol.  114 , pp.  92 - 115 .

Luksyte , A. , Waite , E. , Avery , D.R. and Roy , R. ( 2013 ), “ Held to a different standard: racial differences in the impact of lateness on advancement opportunity ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , Vol.  86 No.  2 , pp.  142 - 165 .

Mayiya , S. , Schachtebeck , C. and Diniso , C. ( 2019 ), “ Barriers to career progression of Black African middle managers: the South African perspective ”, Acta Universitatis Danubius Oeconomica , Vol.  15 No.  2 .

Mora , C. and Undurraga , E.A. ( 2013 ), “ Racialisation of immigrants at work: labour mobility and segmentation of Peruvian migrants in Chile ”, Bulletin of Latin American Research , Vol.  32 No.  3 , pp.  294 - 310 , doi: 10.1111/blar.12002 .

Murphy , G.C. and Athanasou , J.A. ( 1999 ), “ The effect of unemployment on mental health ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , Vol.  72 No.  1 , pp.  83 - 99 .

National Gender and Equality Commission Act ( 2012 ), “ Ch. 5C, Nairobi: national council for law reporting with the authority of the attorney-general ”, available at: www.kenyalaw.org .

Piazzalunga , D. ( 2015 ), “ Is there a double-negative effect? Gender and ethnic wage differentials in Italy ”, Labour , Vol.  29 No.  3 , pp.  243 - 269 .

Pillay , S. , Ramphul , N. , Dorasamy , N. and Meyer , D. ( 2018 ), “ Predictors of whistle-blowing intentions: an analysis of multi-level variables ”, Administration and Society , Vol.  50 No.  2 , pp.  186 - 216 .

Racial Discrimination Act ( 1975 ), “ Barton: attorney General's department, Australian government ”, available at: https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/australias-anti-discrimination-law .

Rafferty , A. ( 2020 ), “ Skill underutilization and under-skilling in Europe: the role of workplace discrimination ”, Work, Employment and Society , Vol.  34 No.  2 , pp.  317 - 335 .

Raub , A. , Sprague , A. , Waisath , W. , Nandi , A. , Atabay , E. , Vincent , I. , Moreno , G. , Earle , A. , Perry , N. and Heymann , J. ( 2022 ), “ Utilizing a comparative policy resource from the WORLD policy analysis center covering constitutional rights, laws, and policies across 193 countries for outcome analysis, monitoring, and accountability ”, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice , Vol.  24 No.  4 , pp. 313 - 328 , doi: 10.1080/13876988.2021.1894073 .

Seabury , S.A. , Terp , S. and Boden , L.I. ( 2017 ), “ Racial and ethnic differences in the frequency of workplace injuries and prevalence of work-related disability ”, Health Affairs , Vol.  36 No.  2 , pp.  266 - 273 .

Seidel , M.-D.L. , Polzer , J.T. and Stewart , K.J. ( 2000 ), “ Friends in high places: the effects of social networks on discrimination in salary negotiations ”, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol.  45 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 24 .

Spafford , M.M. , Nygaard , V.L. , Gregor , F. and Boyd , M.A. ( 2006 ), “ ‘Navigating the different spaces’”: experiences of inclusion and isolation among racially minoritized faculty in Canada ”, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education , Vol.  36 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 27 .

Stalker , P. ( 1994 ), The Work of Strangers: A Survey of International Labour Migration , International Labour Office , Geneva .

Sunstein , C. ( 1996 ), “ On the expressive function of law ”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review , Vol.  144 No.  5 , pp.  2021 - 2053 .

Thomas , A. , Dougherty , J. , Strand , S. , Nayar , A. and Janani , M. ( 2016 ), Decoding Diversity: The Financial and Economic Returns to Diversity in Tech , Intel Corporation and Dalberg Global Development Advisors , New York .

Tomlinson , J. , Valizade , D. , Muzio , D. , Charlwood , A. and Aulakh , S. ( 2019 ), “ Privileges and penalties in the legal profession: an intersectional analysis of career progression ”, The British Journal of Sociology , Vol.  6 No.  70 , pp.  1043 - 1066 .

Turner , A. ( 2018 ), The Business Case for Racial Equity: A Strategy for Growth , W.K. Kellogg Foundation and Altarum , Battle Creek, MI .

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs ( 2015 ), “ Reduce inequality within and among countries, goal 10 ”, available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal10 (accessed 17 September 2021) .

United Nations General Assembly ( 1948 ), “ Universal declaration of human rights, resolution 217 A (III) ”, available at: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ ( accessed 15 July 2021 ).

United Nations General Assembly ( 1966 ), “ International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights ”, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx ( accessed 16 July 2021 ).

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( 1965 ), “ International convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination ”, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cerd.aspx ( accessed 16 July 2021 ).

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( 1966 ), “ International convention on civil and political rights ”, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx ( accessed 16 July 2021 ).

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( 2021a ), “ Status of ratification interactive dashboard - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ”, available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=IV-4&src=IND (accessed 16 July 2021) .

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( 2021b ), “ Status of ratification interactive dashboard - International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ”, available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4 (accessed 15 July 2021) .

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( 2021c ), “ Status of ratification interactive dashboard - International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ”, available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-2&chapter=4&clang=_en (accessed 16 July 2021) .

Weichselbaumer , D. ( 2020 ), “ Multiple discrimination against female immigrants wearing headscarves ”, ILR Review , Vol.  73 No.  3 , pp.  600 - 627 .

Yap , M. ( 2010 ), “ The intersection of gender and race: effects on the incidence of promotions ”, Canadian Journal of Career Development , Vol.  9 No.  2 , pp. 22 - 32 .

Yap , M. and Konrad , A.M. ( 2009 ), “ Gender and racial differentials in promotions: is there a sticky floor, a mid-level bottleneck, or a glass ceiling? ”, Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations , Vol.  64 No.  4 , pp.  593 - 619 .

Yu , H. ( 2020 ), “ Multiracial feminism: an intersectional approach to examining female officers’ occupational barriers in federal law enforcement ”, Women and Criminal Justice , Vol.  31 No.  5 , pp. 327 - 341 , doi: 10.1080/08974454.2020.1734146 .

Zabalza , Z. and Zafiris , T. ( 1985 ), “ The effect of Britain's anti-discriminatory legislation on relative pay and employment ”, The Economic Journal , Vol.  95 No.  379 , pp.  679 - 699 .

Zempi , I. ( 2020 ), “ ‘Looking back, I wouldn't join up again’: the lived experiences of police officers as victims of bias and prejudice perpetrated by fellow staff within an English police force ”, Police Practice and Research: An International Journal , Vol.  2 No.  21 , pp.  33 - 48 .

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Call to +1 844 889-9952

Employee Discrimination at Workplace

Introduction.

Workplace discrimination is among the major issues that affect several modern organizations in the US. Today, the US is a highly diversified society due to the influx of people from other countries who come to look for jobs and better opportunities in life. As a result, many organizations in the US have a more diversified workplace environment. Despite the greater diversity at workplaces, workers always tend to associate with others who share their cultural beliefs and practices.

In this regard, minority groups have found themselves alienated from dominant groups as employees define themselves based on their cultural orientations, belief systems, age, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or any other relevant demographical characteristics. In addition, there is an emerging LGBT group as workplaces evolve. This may cause workplace discrimination if organizations fail to address it effectively. Workplace discrimination has negative impacts on employee productivity.

It inhibits teamwork and cooperation when employees are required to work together and address certain issues in an organization. In addition, discrimination at work limits employees’ creativity and innovativeness because it hampers the culture of knowledge sharing. In this regard, organizations should address workplace discrimination effectively to ensure that it does not hinder employees and organizational prosperity. This research will utilize a case study qualitative approach in data collection and analysis in order to find a solution to employee discrimination at the workplace.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this case study is to explore cases of workplace discrimination, the basis of discrimination, and propose effective ways of stopping the widespread and persistent employment discrimination.

Problem statement

Recent social researches revealed that American society had been affected by the problem of discrimination ever since slavery, and the slave trade was introduced in the country several centuries ago. In addition, several scientific field studies, academic journals, court cases, newspapers, and other reliable sources have documented widespread and continuing workplace discrimination (Huppke, 2013). This situation shows a lack of fairness in workplaces. While fairness at workplaces is critical, many employees continue to experience workplace discrimination. Consequently, their productivity and potentials have declined because discrimination at workplaces hampers outcomes and can be major occupational hazards (Okechukwu, Souza, Davis, & de Castro, 2014).

Literature Review

Roscigno (2007) noted that discrimination intensified after the abolition of slavery and soon after independence. Americans have embraced the culture of tolerance because the world looks for it as a pillar of democracy and just society. As a result, there are remarkable improvements as society aims to be free from any form of discrimination. Nevertheless, discrimination is yet to be eliminated in American society. Roscigno (2007) further stresses that current socio-cultural variations among employees are the major contributing factors to discrimination at workplaces.

While some cases of discrimination are obvious, others may not be directly noticeable to employees, for instance, in cases where an individual is paid less salary compared to others or assigned inhumane tasks. In addition, workplace discrimination may also take soft forms, such as denying an employee a promotion that he or she deserves because of her or his gender, culture, religion, race, or any other demographical factors. Workplace discrimination could also be in the form of alienation of other employees because they do not share common beliefs or cultural practices.

According to Cohn (2009), it is imperative to address discriminatory issues at workplaces in order to avoid their impacts on an organization. Employees can work as a team when an organization addresses any discriminatory challenges it faces. This will allow employees to share new ideas and promote innovation across various fields. When employees work as a team, they are most likely to find solutions easily because of idea-sharing. Workplace discrimination affects employees’ morale, and therefore, it is necessary for organizations to eliminate it and value their employees in order to boost productivity.

Employees who watch others treated unfairly may also perform poorly (Huppke, 2013). A lack of discrimination at workplaces could foster employee unity and help in addressing broader individual or organizational challenges. According to Huppke (2013), employees should come to work safely in the knowledge that they “will be judged solely on their performance” (p. 1). This can be a great source of security for employees who can be able to achieve their full work potential (Huppke, 2013). Therefore, both employees and organizations will benefit from the elimination of workplace discrimination.

Research questions

Specific research questions are important in defining a path that guides data collection in any project. They provide researchers with a guideline on the type of data to be collected. Consequently, researchers avoid the collection of irrelevant data. In qualitative research, open-ended questions are often used to give the respondents the opportunity to express their views freely. The following are some of the research questions that will guide the process of data collection.

• What is your view about discrimination at your current or past workplace?
• What forms of discrimination have you experienced at your current or past work?
• How do you think the victims of discrimination feel when they are within the workplace?
• Do you believe that discrimination against employees has a significant impact on the overall output of the firm?
• What do you believe is the best way of addressing the issue of discrimination in the workplace?

Method of Investigation

Study design.

This research will use case study qualitative method to collect and analyze data. According to a study by Tellis (1997), case study is “an ideal methodology when a holistic, in-depth investigation is needed” (para. 1). Hence, it is an effective methodology for investigating workplace discrimination.

Participants

A case study will be conducted in a single organization to determine issues of workplace discrimination. The researcher recognizes that a case study involves multi-perspective analyses and therefore, several participants will be selected for interviews. Only participants who will be able to provide accurate and alternative explanations will be involved in the study. This strategy would ensure validity of the study because of multiple sources of data.

Data collection

Unstructured questionnaire will be used for data collection. The researcher will use unstructured interviewing, one of the popularly used qualitative research methods. Liamputtong (2009) noted that “Unstructured interviewing involves direct interaction between the researcher and a respondent or group” (p. 67). The researcher will use open-ended questions to gather information from the participants. This strategy allows respondents to answer questions based on their broad views and experiences rather than restricting answers to yes or no.

Given the nature of the study topic, the researcher aims to account for experiences of respondents, who could have personally experienced workplace discrimination. Unstructured questions, therefore, are the most suitable for gathering the required information (Tracy, 2013). Moreover, the researcher recognizes that various respondents may provide different accounts of workplace discrimination. For instance, perpetrators and victims of discrimination may have diverse views on the issue.

Data will also be obtained from archival records and documentation from the organization of the study.

Data analysis

Data analysis will involve cleaning, examining and categorizing obtained evidence to address workplace discrimination (Tellis, 1997). However, Tellis (1997) observed that case study analysis is not well developed. Researchers, therefore, should have a general analytic strategy to manage data that will be analyzed and for what purpose. Nevertheless, identification of themes and explanation-building shall assist the researcher to build explanations for workplace discrimination. In other words, the researcher will be able to provide an explanatory case study of discrimination at the workplace in the chosen organization. Explanation-building could be difficult because of its iterative nature, but researchers must understand such challenges before using it.

To ensure that the analysis maintains high quality standard, the researcher will ensure that all relevant data are used, all opposing views are expressed, analysis focuses on critical aspects of workplace discrimination and the researcher will rely on available knowledge and experiences to enhance outcomes of the study.

Strengths of Qualitative Methods

A number of reasons justified the use case study qualitative methodology.

• Case study will allow participants to respond to questions based on their personal understanding and experiences (Tellis, 1997)
• The method shall ensure that the researcher gather data from multiple sources such as respondents, archival records and documents regarding workplace discrimination
• It would ensure that the researcher understands attitudes of respondents based on interview questions
• Detailed explanations of events and their consequences will be gathered
• It would provide more in-depth accounts of events than other approaches
• The face-to-face interaction during the interview will help in motivating the participants to ask any questions that they may have toward the project. This will increase their chances of participating in the research.

It is because of the factors above that the researcher considered it appropriate to use qualitative methods in this study.

Weaknesses of Qualitative Method

Guven (2008) noted that qualitative research has some weaknesses that could affect its ability to provide the required data for the study. Thus, the researcher should be able to identify these challenges before the study starts.

• The process of collecting data through open-ended questions is time-consuming. For instance, some respondents could provide elaborate responses for questions that require simple answers.
• Data collected could be voluminous as respondents tend to elaborate on their responses without restrictions
• Data analysis process could be complex due to diverse opinions about an issue. In some cases, the researcher may account for all diverse views from respondents independently.
• Critics have argued that it could be difficult to generalize findings from case study analysis

The researcher has recognized potential impacts of these challenges and therefore care will be taken into account to enhance the quality of the study.

Expected Findings

The study findings are expected to discover the causes of workplace discrimination and provide a detailed explanation of its impact on an organization. One major cause of workplace discrimination is the inability of some employees to accept the existence of diversity in workplaces. Stereotyping and feelings of superiority are also responsible for workplace discrimination. When employees believe that they are superior to others, then discriminatory acts would arise and cause the differences.

Many studies have recognized negative impacts of workplace discrimination on both employees and employers and therefore, they agree that fairness at work is good (Huppke, 2013). Failure to control workplace discrimination could result into anarchy within the workplace. Employees will classify themselves along the lines of race, religion, age, gender or any other demographical factors.

It would limit the ability of these employees to integrate into a single unit that is focused on achieving mutual interests within an organization. Employees will tend to focus on their self-interests rather than on the organization. Workplace discrimination could lead to verbal or physical assault and psychological effects as various groups aim to assert their dominant positions on others.

Cases of workplace discrimination have led to attacks on others because of their race, sexuality or religious beliefs. This situation shows how workplace discrimination can make other employees vulnerable and risk their safety. Okechukwu et al. (2014) have noted that workplace discrimination is a contributing factor to occupational health injustice. Failure to address workplace discrimination could lead to detrimental outcomes for an organization because employees will not be able to maximize their potential.

It is expected that the study will provide holistic, in-depth aspects of workplace discrimination and helps in formulating suitable strategies to eliminate it in the focus organization.

Workplace discrimination has continued despite several efforts and laws to curb it in the US. As a result, it has led to negative outcomes for both employees and employers. On this note, it is imperative to conduct a study to evaluate critical aspects of discrimination at workplaces. This case study will highlight some fundamental elements of workplace discrimination, basis of discrimination and propose effective ways of mitigating the widespread and persistent employee discrimination. The researcher believes that the findings would help in addressing effects of workplace discrimination in organizations.

Cohn, S. (2009). Race, Gender, and Discrimination at Work. New York: Westview Press.

Guven, L. M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Los Angeles: Sage.

Huppke, R. (2013). What’s more fair than fairness at work? Chicago Tribune . Web.

Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative research methods. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press.

Okechukwu, C., Souza, K., Davis, K. D., & de Castro, B. (2014). Discrimination, harassment, abuse, and bullying in the workplace: Contribution of workplace injustice to occupational health disparities. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 57 (5), 573–586. Web.

Roscigno, V. J. (2007). The face of discrimination: How race and gender impact work and home lives. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a Case Study Methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3 (3). Web.

Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Malden, MA : Wiley-Blackwell.

Cite this paper

Select style

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

BusinessEssay. (2022, December 9). Employee Discrimination at Workplace. https://business-essay.com/employee-discrimination-at-workplace/

"Employee Discrimination at Workplace." BusinessEssay , 9 Dec. 2022, business-essay.com/employee-discrimination-at-workplace/.

BusinessEssay . (2022) 'Employee Discrimination at Workplace'. 9 December.

BusinessEssay . 2022. "Employee Discrimination at Workplace." December 9, 2022. https://business-essay.com/employee-discrimination-at-workplace/.

1. BusinessEssay . "Employee Discrimination at Workplace." December 9, 2022. https://business-essay.com/employee-discrimination-at-workplace/.

Bibliography

BusinessEssay . "Employee Discrimination at Workplace." December 9, 2022. https://business-essay.com/employee-discrimination-at-workplace/.

• Influence and Persuasion Strategies in Management
• Employee Computer Monitoring: System Analysis
• Managing People. Performance Appraisal Methods
• Lack of Training in Changing Organization Management
• Human Resources Training, Learning and Development
• Team Members at Big Blue
• How Motivation Influences Job Satisfaction
• HRM and Project Management Relationship
• Human Resource Strategies: Google Company Challenges
• Employee Motivation Through Financial Incentives

Discrimination against Women in the Workplace

How it works

Various studies report that inequality still persists despite women making great milestones in the place of work (Bach, 2018). A recent survey conducted by Social Institutions and Gender Index (2018) shows that women discrimination in the United States is much higher when compared to discrimination against women in Australia, Colombia, regions of Eastern Europe, and Western Europe (Bach, 2018). The report by Social Institutions and Gender Index also highlighted the existing gender compensation differences in US, as well as the perseverance of an unconscious gender discrimination (Bach, 2018).

These findings are attributed to female underrepresentation in the workplace. According to research, close to 42 percent of working women in US have reported experiencing discrimination on work due to their gender (Parker & Funk, 2017). This highlights the disparity in gender discrimination, simply observing the sheer size of reportings relative to harassment reports by men provide concrete evidence. In 2017, Pew Research Center undertook a survey to investigate women’s experiences with regards to discrimination at work; According to the Pew Research Center findings, women report a wide range of personal experiences, stretching all the way from receiving less pay than male colleagues for performing similar work to being denied the opportunity to take on crucial work assignments (Parker & Funk, 2017). More studies conducted among working adults show that females are almost twice (42% women compared to 22% males) as likely as males to report they have faced one or more of various forms of gender discrimination on the job (Gough & Noonan 2013).

While some countries including the United States has put into place anti-discrimination laws to curb cases of gender and sexual discrimination, societal roles, rules, and practices instruct and motivate men to devalue or value women (Wolfe, 2019). Women are constantly subjected to unfair behavior for instance being told “you run like a girl” has somehow become a common thing to say. But the question is where did the idea that women or girls some how do things “poorly” compared to boys or men. It is ridiculous that women who are competent and skilled may be left out of consideration in promotions because they are perceived to have a chance of getting pregnant (Wolfe, 2019). Nevertheless, a job may be given to a man who is less competent simply because he is a man. The most rampant form of gender discrimination encountered by women is pay or income inequality. 25% of employed women in US report they have been paid less compared to a male counterpart doing the same work (Parker & Funk, 2017). Research reveals that only 5% of working men report to have received less pay than a female colleague. As reported by the US Census Bureau, women earn 20% less than what men earn (Bach, 2018). In comparison to men, women are about four times (23% of working females versus 6% of employed males) more likely to report they have been handled in a manner that demonstrates that they are less skilled because of their gender (Parker & Funk, 2017).

Although pay gap is considered as the main form of gender discrimination, there are also notable gaps on other areas. 15 percent of employed women report they have earned little support from senior managers compared to a male who was performing similar task. In contrast, only 7% of employed males say to have experienced similar encounter. Working women are twice (10% of working women versus 5% men) as likely as men to report that they have not been shortlisted for the most valuable job assignments as result of their gender (Plickert & Sterling, 2017). Considering the arguments presented above, this paper hypothesized that women are more discriminated in the workplace because of their gender. Furthermore, the paper theorized that women are discriminated against in the workplace not because of their performance level, but because of the existing societal roles, norms and rules. In fact, some of females have made significant achievement in terms of education, management, leadership, and other aspects of life. Perhaps if we continue to shed light on the discrimination of women in the workplace eventually things will improve.

According to Gough and Noonan (2013), the belief that females are less dedicated and motivated in their careers is among the most cited explanations for ongoing women discrimination in work. Several researchers and scholars hold the view that stereotyped stigmas lead to women getting less challenging responsibilities than their male colleagues (Plickert & Sterling, 2017). The act of assigning less challenging tasks to women hinders career growth and development in females. Focusing on social roles and gender stereotypes, spreads discrimination into the workplace. Masculine customs demonstrated in the performance of high risk assignments and hard work still dictate many blue collar workplaces. The demand to demonstrate masculinity assumes a diverse form among workers (Thornton, 2016). In high-ranked occupations such as legal firms, the symbol of masculinity is propagated by professionals performing tasks for long hours to exhibit commitment in the place of work (Thornton, 2016).

Women, in particular mothers, encounter gender stereotypes concerning being less dedicated to their job, inability to meet a job assignment and underrated in their performance despite performing just as well as the opposite sex. According to the US labor force, an ideal employee is defined as a person who works weekly for 40 hours and overtime, has no or little to no time to bare and raise children, and is regularly available to the employer (Plickert & Sterling, 2017). Going by this definition alone is proof to conclude that women face difficulties in undertaking and meeting the expectations that are important to the firm. The notion that women are less committed to work may commence once women marry. This is in line with the supposition that women will get pregnant the moment they marry. Plickert and Sterling (2017) argue that when women come back from maternity leave, they start to experience differential treatment in the workplace. For example, the moment women return from family leave, their work commitment is questioned and they may be passed over for vital job promotions or assignments. Women are treated in a manner that assumes they have become less skilled because of giving birth.

Studies by Sloan (2012), and Budig and Hodges (2010) point out that it is presumed the moment women birth kids, they can no longer be dedicated to both job and family. Nonetheless, the researchers (Sloan (2012); and Budig and Hodges (2010) reveal that it is job experiences and not societal or gender obligations that determine dedication to a job. Taking into account the variations in insights of cultural “ideal job” requirements of mothers and fathers, females are not expected to be full time employees. Within the context of men, full-time job time tables and families are seen as compatible commitments (Sloan, 2012). On the other hand, an identical combination for females is considered as competing dedications (Sloan, 2012). Generally, the biased perceptions of performance and commitment promote women discrimination in the workplace.

Another explanation proposed for the persisting women discrimination in places of work is the differences by education. Among working females, the proportion of women reporting to have witnessed workplace sexual abuse is approximately the same across, educational, partisan, racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds (Parker & Funk, 2017). However, research shows that the situation is much different when it comes to specific types of discrimination in the workplace. Research has identified significant variations among women that are deeply ingrained mostly in their education level (Sloan, 2012). Females with a University degree or higher education level report to experience discrimination within a scale that is at a considerably higher rates compared to females with lower education levels. 57% of employed women with postgraduate degree report they have faced some form of workplace gender discrimination (Parker & Funk, 2017). This number is relatively higher compared to 40% of women with bachelor’s degree and 39% of women who never completed college reporting similar experiences (Parker & Funk, 2017).

About 29% of women having postgraduate degree claim they have encountered recurrent discrimination on the job as result of their gender, in relation to 18% of women with bachelor’s degree and 12% of women with lower level of education (Parker & Funk, 2017). Likewise, 27% of employed women with postgraduate degree are more likely than their counterparts with lower levels of education (11% of women with bachelor’s degree and 13% of women with less education) to report they have received less backing from senior managers compared to a male performing the same job assignment (Parker & Funk, 2017). Studies have found that feeling alienated at work, as well as being passed over for work training or promotion closely follow the same pattern (Thornton, 2016).

From the perspective of wages, employed women with bachelor’s degree or higher education are much more probable compared to women with less education to report they have received being paid a lower wage than a man who did. Statistically, 30% of women with bachelor’s degree or more compared to about 21% of women with less education argue they have received less pay than a male in the same rank (Parker & Funk, 2017). Overall, research shows that women with greater family earnings are nearly equally probable to have faced one or more form of gender-oriented discrimination in the workplace (Parker & Funk, 2017).

Race and ethnicity have also been given as explanations for perpetuation of gender discrimination at work. An estimated 53% of working black women report they have encountered at least one form of gender discrimination in the workplace (Parker & Funk, 2017). In contrast, only 40% of White and 40% of Hispanic have said they have experienced gender discrimination at work (Parker & Funk, 2017). Studies reveal that 29% of employed black women compared with 9% of Hispanic and 8% of Whites have reported to have been passed over for most vital job tasks because of their gender (Parker & Funk, 2017).

In conclusion, women have made significant advances in terms of work experiences and education. In fact, some women have partaken in various industries that are male dominated and have emerged successful. However, recent studies show that women continue to experience different forms of gender discrimination in the workplace (Parker & Funk (2017); Gough & Noonan (2013)). Women are nearly three times more likely than men to claim they have encountered frequent small insults at job due to their gender orientation. Women have reported to have experienced various forms of gender discrimination including training opportunities, equal pay, and promotions (Parker & Funk, 2017). Societal norms, education levels, and ethnicity and race have been cited as some of the factors fueling women discrimination in the workplace (Thornton, 2016).

• Bach, N. (2018). American Women Face More Discrimination than Europeans, Report Finds. Accessed from http://fortune.com/2018/12/07/gender-discrimination-us-oecd-report/
• Budig, M. J., & Hodges, M. J. (2010). Differences in disadvantage: Variation in the motherhood penalty across white women’s earnings distribution. American Sociological Review, 75(5), 705-728.
• Gough, M., & Noonan, M. (2013). A review of the motherhood wage penalty in the United States. Sociology Compass, 7(4), 328-342.
• Parker, K., & Funk, C. (2017). Gender discrimination comes in many forms for today’s working women. Pew Research Center, December, 14.
• Plickert, G., & Sterling, J. (2017). Gender Still Matters: Effects of Workplace Discrimination on Employment Schedules of Young Professionals. Laws, 6(4), 28.
• Thornton, M. (2016). Work/life or work/work? Corporate legal practice in the twenty-first century. International journal of the legal profession, 23(1), 13-39.
• Wolfe, L. (2019). Corporations Sued for Gender Discrimination Against Women and Men. Accessed from https://www.thebalancecareers.com/gender-discrimination-against-women-and-men-3515719

Cite this page

Discrimination Against Women in the Workplace. (2021, Feb 24). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/discrimination-against-women-in-the-workplace/

"Discrimination Against Women in the Workplace." PapersOwl.com , 24 Feb 2021, https://papersowl.com/examples/discrimination-against-women-in-the-workplace/

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Discrimination Against Women in the Workplace . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/discrimination-against-women-in-the-workplace/ [Accessed: 29 May. 2024]

"Discrimination Against Women in the Workplace." PapersOwl.com, Feb 24, 2021. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/discrimination-against-women-in-the-workplace/

"Discrimination Against Women in the Workplace," PapersOwl.com , 24-Feb-2021. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/discrimination-against-women-in-the-workplace/. [Accessed: 29-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Discrimination Against Women in the Workplace . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/discrimination-against-women-in-the-workplace/ [Accessed: 29-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Discrimination Problem in the Workplace

Introduction.

It is necessary to mention that discrimination in the workplace is a topic that has been actively discussed by scholars over the last few years and has drawn the attention of many researchers. The concept may be defined as unfair treatment of individuals based on the color of their skin, gender, age, disability, and other factors. Organizations that promote ethnic diversity have to deal with numerous challenges because some individuals are reluctant to cooperate and accept other traditions.

Maternal discrimination is a crucial issue because it limits the possibilities for personal and professional development. Unfair treatment at work also leads to a broad range of other complications such as worsened mood at home and depression. The primary argument is that the situation has improved in recent years, but discrimination in the workplace is still a critical problem because its impact may be subtle and can affect the life of a person in the long-term if a company does not consider preventive measures.

It is imperative to understand that an employer is not the only person that may treat people unfairly. Many individuals are not aware of which statements or words are appropriate, and could discriminate against others even if it is not intentional. A well-developed set of policies that includes the description of unacceptable behavior could help to avoid such issues (Robinson, 2013).

Another aspect that needs to be highlighted is that some minority groups may be biased towards each other, and it complicates the integration when individuals think that their presence is not appreciated. Possible communication problems may reduce the efficiency of operations, and job satisfaction levels are lowered if the environment in the organization is not supportive. Therefore, firms should devote much more attention to the promotion of tolerance and education of workers on this subject matter.

Maternal discrimination is particularly problematic because employers believe that performance levels of mothers are reduced significantly, and they are too worried about their children most of the time. One of the problems that should not be disregarded is that higher-ups appreciate if individuals overwork and are always available. On the other hand, a mother can be occupied because they have a broad range of responsibilities.

Moreover, many supervisors think that females are more likely to leave the job, and the company may waste money on training and education of such employees. However, such beliefs are mostly based on assumptions and do not reflect the actual situation. It is against the law to discriminate against people because of economic reasons most of the time, but an employer can provide such information to justify his or her actions in some cases.

The utilization of such techniques as performance management systems may be incredibly helpful when a firm is trying to prevent discrimination. The approach may minimize bias because employers would make decisions based on the comparison of available data. Endurance is the technique that mothers use in such situations most of the time, but it is ineffective in the long-term and does not facilitate changes in the workplace (Crowley, 2013). Overall, many companies undervalue mothers and their capabilities, and it leads to discriminatory behavior.

Complications associated with workplace discrimination also should be mentioned. For instance, it is noted that such experiences also have a direct impact on families of some individuals. Their children are more likely to abuse substances, and it frequently leads to psychological problems. One of the studies has shown that prejudice affects the way individuals perceive their children at home, and they are less likely to see positive behaviors because of dramatic changes in mood (Gassman‐Pines, 2015).

Parents understand that they should not get angry, and it is not their fault. However, the impact of inequity is so dramatic that it is impossible to manage emotions. Individuals may feel helpless in such situations because it is hard to prove unfair treatment, and they may be afraid that complaints would affect their employment status. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the management team to ensure that such instances are avoided. An anonymous reporting system may be established, and professionals can monitor the behavior of individuals that are suspected.

In summary, it is possible to state that modern society has made enormous progress when it comes to the reduction of discrimination in the workplace, but numerous instances of unfair treatment indicate that the problem still was not solved. Nevertheless, many companies have access to necessary resources and have developed efficient strategies that help them to minimize injustice. The understanding of associated terms is crucial because an employer may apply the knowledge in the workplace and come up with appropriate solutions (Abben, Brown, Graupmann, Mockler, & Fernandes, 2013).

This topic is incredibly important because many firms disregard the need to monitor the behavior of their workers, and it leads to severe consequences. Future research on this subject matter is necessary, and it would be reasonable to explore other dimensions of this problem. For example, it would be beneficial to evaluate the relationship between productivity and discrimination and the impact it has on decisions related to career.

Abben, D., Brown, S., Graupmann, V., Mockler, S., & Fernandes, G. (2013). Drawing on Social Psychology Literature to Understand and Reduce Workplace Discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6 (4), 476-479.

Crowley, J. (2013). Perceiving and responding to maternal workplace discrimination in the United States. Women’s Studies International Forum, 40 (1), 192-202.

Gassman‐Pines, A. (2015). Effects of Mexican Immigrant Parents’ Daily Workplace Discrimination on Child Behavior and Family Functioning. Child Development, 86 (4), 1175-1190.

Robinson, D. A. (2013). Workplace discrimination prevention manual: Tips for executives, managers, and students to increase productivity and reduce litigation . Bloomington, IN: Archway Publishing.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, January 18). Discrimination Problem in the Workplace. https://studycorgi.com/discrimination-problem-in-the-workplace/

"Discrimination Problem in the Workplace." StudyCorgi , 18 Jan. 2021, studycorgi.com/discrimination-problem-in-the-workplace/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'Discrimination Problem in the Workplace'. 18 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Discrimination Problem in the Workplace." January 18, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/discrimination-problem-in-the-workplace/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Discrimination Problem in the Workplace." January 18, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/discrimination-problem-in-the-workplace/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "Discrimination Problem in the Workplace." January 18, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/discrimination-problem-in-the-workplace/.

This paper, “Discrimination Problem in the Workplace”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: April 23, 2021 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

• Knowledge Base
• Popular Essay Topics

Gender Discrimination in the Workplace Essay

• Author Kimberly Ball
• Category Popular Essay Topics

Disclaimer: This paper has been submitted by a student. This is not a sample of the work written by professional academic writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of StudySaurus.

Introduction

Gender discrimination remains a global issue of great concern within society and in the workplace environment. Discrimination at the workplace has several disadvantages such as low productivity and increased level of demoralization. Discrimination in the workplace remains a contentious issue of great concern that organizations should learn to address (Christy and Brad 12). Many people have argued that favoring specific individuals or communities within the workplace will enhance productivity while other people have an opinion that it greatly affects organizational performance. It is true that women, unlike men, continue to undergo unfair discrimination and unlawful discrimination in the workplace. Some people have argued that discrimination of women over certain activities are essential for the overall performance of the firm while other people also think that gender discrimination is a total violation of work ethics and labor laws (Jennings, para.19). The discussion is an argumentative essay that seeks to provide reasons against and reasons for gender discrimination in the workplace.

The Argument Against Women Discrimination in the Workplace

Increase in Productivity

It is important that the organization treat both men and women the same in the workplace. Offering them equal services in most cases tends to motivate them as they work towards the realization of the organizational success. Treating workers with respect improves their sense of satisfactorily as well as making them happy. However, they display a good image of the company even to the outsiders (Dipboye and Colella 13). Besides, it attracts more inventors to the company with the aim of achieving the set goals.

Additionally, On the other hand, any form of workers discrimination creates rivalry and hatred among employees. Consequently, it adversely affects the performance of the firm (Shih, Young, and Bucher, 145). It is vital for a company to show dignity to their employees for continuous productivity. More so, the company should develop laws that protect the employees’ welfare to reduce job harassment.

Business enterprises should improve in eliminating gender discrimination in the place of work. They should consider women’s rights as well as gender equality. It has effects on transgender and bisexual people thus affecting how they interact with their colleagues (Ghumman and Ryan 677). Companies should enact measures to stop and prevent discrimination to avoid lowering output productivity.

Gender biasing can result in mental illness such as tremor due to outside pressure from the people around (Wolfe 31). The victims usually develop depression and anxiety due to emotional loneliness. They can also engage in the use of drug substances, which has adverse outcomes such as affecting work capabilities and health complications. Mental health problems also affect the company’s managers due to unstable workers who produce low quality work.

It also creates conflicts between employees leading to increased hatred. Discrimination always brings harassment as some people receive favors while others are ill-treated. It develops disunity and divides employees as both sides have followers. As a result, job performance reduces due to office dramas and arguments.

However, conflicts in the workplace always lead to negative results as output production is affected. The organization should enact measures to stop gender biasing to create a peaceful working environment (Christy and Brad, 31). They should ensure that all workers regardless of gender are treated equally without any form of nuisance. It will make each worker appreciate another person as they work towards achieving the company’s goals.

Gender inequality in a workplace lowers company morale as most of the employees engage in worthless activities. The employees working morale is significantly affected due to the division between employees. The clients to are concerned as they receive ill treatments from the employees (Wolfe 4). It displays a lousy company image to the public hence lowering the number of potential clients. Therefore, companies should eliminate any form of gender discrimination to ensure they meet the target market. Adopting diversity in the workplace and managing it more efficiently ensures firms are ready to achieve their goals and target on top of attracting a wider range of potential employees.

Moreover, discriminating workers and hostility to them compromises their productivity level. Therefore, it is advisable that for the new firm venturing in the market to uphold fair treatment free from any form of discrimination as well as teamwork and the employee’s diversification to see the firm achieving its operational goals and policies (Rhode, para.10). On the other hand, some organization might decide to discriminate women given that research shows that women in most cases tend to register a lower level of productivity based on the manner and the nature of a job (Dipboye and Colella 17). It, therefore, indicates that discrimination has both the good and its negative effect on the overall performance of the business.

Women contribute to the company’s productivity as many works hard to keep their families. Many are single parents hence they ensure that they provide needs to people concerned. Increase in workers conflict has an impact in the office productivity due to reducing in work enthusiasm. To generate better produce any organization should ensure that there is peaceful coexistence between workers and their seniors.

It will increase the employee’s comfortability and enjoyment when attending to their duties. It also leads to a rise in the worker’s sense of belonging as they feel the need to perform their tasks (De Hart and Dayton, 16). Moreover, women biasing lower the companies productivity permanent measures should be enacted to curb the issue.

Arguments for the Need for Women Discrimination

Nature of Certain Work Types

Many organizations can decide to discriminate women based on the nature of certain jobs. Some job types only require the service of the man and not women. Additionally, some research shows that women have a lower rate of productivity and offering them a chance might not have the value that the organization needs for the realization of its major objective and even demands towards the realization of its goals (Denissen and Saguy 388). The management will decide not to employ women given that they also tend to be slow in the manner that they carry out their activities.

Some Job Types only Require Men and not Women

Certain jobs that require a lot of energy may not favor women at the workplace. Therefore, it will force the organization to look for the men and not women. For example, a construction firm will mainly prefer working with men and not women. Men are known to produce quality job as compared with women. Women are known not to like working under pressure or in certain conditions.

Women Tend to have many Excuses with Limited Flexibility as Compared to Men

It will be difficult for the women gender to work in places that seem to be of hardship as compared to men. Most women prefer working places that seems close to their homes and family so that they can give or attend to their family needs. It, therefore, shows that most organization will find it easy to avoid recruiting women in the workplace based on the numerous challenges. For instance, the moment that the firm decides to give a woman two months of  pregnancy leave, the firm will be facing employee and productivity challenges. Considering the above factors altogether, it will then be possible for the firm to discriminate women at the workplace.

Gender discrimination remains an issue of great concern. Based on my argument and reasoning, I take a point that women discrimination has many challenges in life as compared to the benefits. Discriminating women within organizations are harmful to the business performance given that it tends to demoralize the ability of the employees to deliver their level best to enhance productivity. Treating employees on an equal basis gives them a sense of belonging. Workers feel motivated when frequently involved in the decision-making process and into the daily operations. The primary goal of every firm is to work towards increasing profit realization through employee’s productivity, and most of the male counterpart will feel discouraged when women receive unfair treatment. However, in some cases, reasons such as low productivity might make it a better reason to discriminate against women in the workplace. Women tend to have a lower rate of workplace flexibility as compared to men, and that makes it a better reason for discriminating them.

Was this material helpful?

Related essays, about studysaurus, community. knowledge. success..

StudySaurus is run by two uni-students that still get a kick out of learning new things. We hope to share these experiences with you.

Ideas ,  concepts ,  tutorials,   essay papers  – everything we would’ve liked to have known, seen or heard during our high-school & UNI years, we want to bring to YOU.

Privacy & Cookies Policy Terms and Conditions DMCA Request