Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-grvzd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T11:58:54.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Settling for Less? Organizational Determinants of Discrimination-Charge Outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

C. Elizabeth Hirsh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although more than 60,000 workers formally charge their employers with unlawful sex or race employment discrimination annually, fewer than one in five charges results in outcomes favorable to the complainant. Building on sociolegal and organizational theory, this study examines how employing organizations avoid unfavorable discrimination-charge outcomes. Using EEO-1 establishment reports matched to discrimination charge data provided by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I assess the effect of employers' legal experience, resources, and indicators of legal compliance on the likelihood that complainants receive favorable charge outcomes, benefits, monetary settlements, and policy change mandates. In general, I find that legal experience, establishment size, and indicators of legal compliance insulate employers from unfavorable charge outcomes. However, in situations where employers are willing to settle claims, legally experienced establishments are more likely to pay monetary damages and receive mandates to change their workplace policies.

Information

Type
Articles of General Interest
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 239 - 274
Copyright
© 2008 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

I thank Ron Edwards and Bliss Cartwright at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for providing access to their data. I appreciate the helpful comments of Barbara Reskin, Lowell Hargens, Paul Burstein, Becky Pettit, LSR reviewers, and LSR editor Carroll Seron on earlier drafts of this article. A previous version of this article was presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, Canada, August 2006. Research support comes from the National Science Foundation (grant no. SES-0602496).

References

References

Albiston, Catherine (2003) “The Rule of Law and the Litigation Process: The Paradox of Losing by Winning,” in Kritzer, H. M. & Silbey, S., eds., In Litigation: Do the Haves Still Come Out Ahead? Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Albiston, Catherine (2005) “Bargaining in the Shadow of Institutions: Competing Discourses and Social Change in the Workplace Mobilization of Civil Rights,” 39 Law & Society Rev. 11–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisom-Rapp, Susan (1999) “Bulletproofing the Workplace,” 26 Florida State University Law Rev. 959–1049.Google Scholar
Blumrosen, Alfred (1993) Modern Law: The Law Transmission System and Equal Employment Opportunity. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Bumiller, Kristin (1988) The Civil Rights Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Burstein, Paul (1989) “Attacking Sex Discrimination in the Labor Market: A Study in Law and Politics,” 67 Social Forces 641–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstein, Paul, & Monaghan, Kathleen (1986) “Equal Employment Opportunity and the Mobilization of Law,” 20 Law & Society Rev. 355–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbin, Frank, et al. (1993) “Equal Opportunity Law and the Construction of Internal Labor Markets,” 99 American J. of Sociology 396–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, John J., & Siegelman, Peter (1991) “The Changing Nature of Employment Discrimination Litigation,” 43 Stanford Law Rev. 983–1033.Google Scholar
Donohue, John J., & Siegelman, Peter (2005) “The Evolution of Employment Discrimination Law in the 1990s: A Preliminary Empirical Investigation,” in Nielson, L. B. & Nelson, R. L., eds., Handbook of Employment Discrimination Research: Rights and Realities. New York: Springer Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B. (1990) “Legal Environments and Organizational Governance: The Expansion of Due Process in the American Workplace,” 95 American J. of Sociology 1401–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B. (1992) “Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights Law,” 97 American J. of Sociology 1531–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B. (2005) “Law at Work: The Endogeneous Construction of Civil Rights,” in Nielson, L. B. & Nelson, R. L., eds., Handbook of Employment Discrimination Research: Rights and Realities. New York: Springer Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., & Petterson, Stephen M. (1999) “Symbols and Substance in Organizational Response to Civil Rights Law,” 17 Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 107–35.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., & Suchman, Mark C. (1999) “When the Haves Hold Court: Speculations on the Organizational Internalization of the Law,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 941–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., et al. (1999) “The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation: Grievance Procedures as Rational Myth,” 105 American J. of Sociology 406–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Rev. 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Hugh D. (1990) The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Developments of National Policy. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Heinz, John P., et al. (1998) “The Changing Character of Lawyer's Work: Chicago in 1975 and 1995,” 32 Law & Society Rev. 751–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsh, C. Elizabeth, & Kornrich, Sabino (2008) “The Context of Discrimination: Workplace Conditions, Institutional Environments, and Sex and Race Discrimination Charges,” 113 American J. of Sociology 1394–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalev, Alexandra, et al. (2006) “Best Practices or Best Guesses? Diversity Management and the Remediation of Inequality,” 71 American Sociological Rev. 589–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, Ryon, et al. (2006) “Social Structure and Formal Law: Social Attributes and the Outcomes of Employment Discrimination Cases.” Presented at the American Sociological Association, Montreal, Quebec (August).Google Scholar
Lillard, Margaret (2005) “NC Department Deemed Racially Hostile,” Yahoo News, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/noose_discrimination (accessed 18 May 2005).Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott (1997) Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Marshall, Anna-Marie (2005) “Idle Rights: Employees' Rights Consciousness and the Construction of Sexual Harassment Policies,” 39 Law & Society Rev. 83–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, Douglas S., & Denton, Nancy A. (1988) “The Dimensions of Residential Segregation,” 67 Social Forces 281–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielson, Laura Beth, & Nelson, Robert L. (2005) “Scaling the Pyramid: A Sociolegal Model of Employment Discrimination Litigation,” in Nielson, L. B. & Nelson, R. L., eds., Handbook of Employment Discrimination Research: Rights and Realities. New York: Springer Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Robert L., & Bridges, William P. (1999) Legalizing Gender Inequality: Courts, Markets, and Unequal Pay for Women in America. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Corre L., et al. (2005) “Studying Race or Ethnic and Sex Segregation at the Establishment Level: Methodological Issues and Substantive Opportunities Using EEO-1 Reports,” 32 Work and Occupations 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald N. (1991) The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schultz, Vicki (1990) “Telling Stories about Women and Work: Judicial Interpretations of Sex Segregation in the Workplace in Title VII Cases Raising the ‘Lack of Interest’ Argument,” 103 Harvard Law Rev. 1750–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturm, Susan (2001) “Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach,” 101 Columbia Law Rev. 458–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, John R., & Dobbin, Frank (1996) “Two Faces of Governance: Responses to Legal Uncertainty in U.S. Firms, 1955–1985,” 61 American Sociological Rev. 794–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2004) “Charge and Litigation Statistics from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, FY 1992 through 2003,” http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/all.html (accessed 18 Dec. 2004).Google Scholar
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2005) “Home Depot to Pay $5.5 Million to Resolve Class Discrimination Lawsuit in Colorado,” http://www.eeoc.gov/press/8-25-04.html (accessed 24 May 2005).Google Scholar
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2007) “Definition of Terms,” http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/define.html (accessed 1 March 2007).Google Scholar
Wakefield, Sara, & Uggen, Christopher (2004) “The Declining Significance of Race in Federal Civil Rights Law,” 74 Sociological Inquiry 128–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westin, Alan F., & Feliu, Alfred G. (1988) Resolving Employment Disputes without Litigation. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Stanton, et al. (1987) “Do the Haves Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870–1970,” 21 Law & Society Rev. 403–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Statutes Cited

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17.Google Scholar
Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. 206(d).Google Scholar
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(k).Google Scholar