employment discrimination essay

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Discrimination — Discrimination in the Workplace

Discrimination in The Workplace

Categories: Discrimination Social Justice Women's Rights

About this sample

Words: 653 |

Published: Mar 16, 2024

Words: 653 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Racial discrimination, gender discrimination, other forms of discrimination.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

Expert in: Social Issues Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 672 words

3 pages / 1171 words

3 pages / 1462 words

3 pages / 1552 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Discrimination

In today's competitive job market, companies often prioritize the appearance and image of their employees as a part of their brand strategy. This practice, commonly known as "going for the look," involves hiring individuals [...]

Discrimination in health care is a distressing reality that persists in modern societies, casting a shadow over the principles of fairness and equality that should govern medical practices. Health care is a fundamental human [...]

Skin discrimination is a deeply entrenched form of bias that persists in many societies, perpetuating social inequalities and hindering progress towards a more inclusive world. This essay delves into the complexities of skin [...]

The question of whether healthcare is a right or a luxury is a contentious and complex issue that lies at the intersection of social, economic, and ethical considerations. Access to quality healthcare is a fundamental [...]

Discrimination is a disgusting practice that has been around for many years. The culture and bad teaching have kept this unfair act of exclusionary favor of one group over another alive by means of unchanging learned behaviors, [...]

The dictionary defines microaggression as an utterance, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group. Professor Derald Sue attempts to define [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
HHS Author Manuscripts

The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets

Persistent racial inequality in employment, housing, and a wide range of other social domains has renewed interest in the possible role of discrimination. And yet, unlike in the pre–civil rights era, when racial prejudice and discrimination were overt and widespread, today discrimination is less readily identifiable, posing problems for social scientific conceptualization and measurement. This article reviews the relevant literature on discrimination, with an emphasis on racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit markets, and consumer interactions. We begin by defining discrimination and discussing relevant methods of measurement. We then provide an overview of major findings from studies of discrimination in each of the four domains; and, finally, we turn to a discussion of the individual, organizational, and structural mechanisms that may underlie contemporary forms of discrimination. This discussion seeks to orient readers to some of the key debates in the study of discrimination and to provide a roadmap for those interested in building upon this long and important line of research.

Persistent racial inequality in employment, housing, and other social domains has renewed interest in the possible role of discrimination. Contemporary forms of discrimination, however, are often subtle and covert, posing problems for social scientific conceptualization and measurement. This article reviews the relevant literature on racial discrimination, providing a roadmap for scholars who wish to build on this rich and important tradition. The charge for this article was a focus on racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit markets, and consumer interactions, but many of the arguments reviewed here may also extend to other domains (e.g., education, health care, the criminal justice system) and to other types of discrimination (e.g., gender, age, sexual orientation). We begin this discussion by defining discrimination and discussing methods for measuring discrimination. We then provide an overview of major findings from studies of discrimination in employment, housing, and credit and consumer markets. Finally, we turn to a discussion of the individual, organizational, and structural mechanisms that may underlie contemporary forms of discrimination.

WHAT IS DISCRIMINATION?

According to its most simple definition, racial discrimination refers to unequal treatment of persons or groups on the basis of their race or ethnicity. In defining racial discrimination, many scholars and legal advocates distinguish between differential treatment and disparate impact, creating a two-part definition: Differential treatment occurs when individuals are treated unequally because of their race. Disparate impact occurs when individuals are treated equally according to a given set of rules and procedures but when the latter are constructed in ways that favor members of one group over another ( Reskin 1998 , p. 32; National Research Council 2004 , pp. 39–40). The second component of this definition broadens its scope to include decisions and processes that may not themselves have any explicit racial content but that have the consequence of producing or reinforcing racial disadvantage. Beyond more conventional forms of individual discrimination, institutional processes such as these are important to consider in assessing how valued opportunities are structured by race.

A key feature of any definition of discrimination is its focus on behavior. Discrimination is distinct from racial prejudice (attitudes), racial stereotypes (beliefs), and racism (ideologies) that may also be associated with racial disadvantage (see Quillian 2006 ). Discrimination may be motivated by prejudice, stereotypes, or racism, but the definition of discrimination does not presume any unique underlying cause.

HOW CAN WE MEASURE DISCRIMINATION?

More than a century of social science interest in the question of discrimination has resulted in numerous techniques to isolate and identify its presence and to document its effects ( National Research Council 2004 ). Although no method is without its limitations, together these techniques provide a range of perspectives that can help to inform our understanding of whether, how, and to what degree discrimination matters in the lives of contemporary American racial minorities.

Perceptions of Discrimination

Numerous surveys have asked African Americans and other racial minorities about their experiences with discrimination in the workplace, in their search for housing, and in other everyday social settings ( Schuman et al. 2001 ). One startling conclusion from this line of research is the frequency with which discrimination is reported. A 2001 survey, for example, found that more than one-third of blacks and nearly 20% of Hispanics and Asians reported that they had personally been passed over for a job or promotion because of their race or ethnicity ( Schiller 2004 ). A 1997 Gallup poll found that nearly half of all black respondents reported having experienced discrimination at least once in one of five common situations in the past month ( Gallup Organ. 1997 ). Further, the frequency with which discrimination is reported does not decline among those higher in the social hierarchy; in fact, middle-class blacks are as likely to perceive discrimination as are working-class blacks, if not more ( Feagin & Sikes 1994 , Kessler et al. 1990 ). Patterns of perceived discrimination are important findings in their own right, as research shows that those who perceive high levels of discrimination are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and other negative health outcomes ( Kessler et al. 1990 ). Furthermore, perceived discrimination may lead to diminished effort or performance in education or the labor market, which itself gives rise to negative outcomes ( Ogbu 1991 ; Steele 1997 ; Loury 2002 , pp. 26–33). What remains unclear from this line of research, however, is to what extent perceptions of discrimination correspond to some reliable depiction of reality. Because events may be misperceived or overlooked, perceptions of discrimination may over- or underestimate the actual incidence of discrimination.

Reports by Potential Discriminators

Another line of social science research focuses on the attitudes and actions of dominant groups for insights into when and how racial considerations come into play. In addition to the long tradition of survey research on racial attitudes and stereotypes among the general population (cf. Schuman et al. 2001 , Farley et al. 1994 ), a number of researchers have developed interview techniques aimed at gauging propensities toward discrimination among employers and other gatekeepers. Harry Holzer has conducted a number of employer surveys in which employers are asked a series of questions about “the last worker hired for a noncollege job,” thereby grounding employers’ responses in a concrete recent experience (e.g., Holzer 1996 ). In this format, race is asked about as only one incidental characteristic in a larger series of questions concerning this recent employee, thereby reducing the social desirability bias often triggered when the subject of race is highlighted. Likewise, by focusing on a completed action, the researcher is able to document revealed preferences rather than expressed ones and to examine the range of employer, job, and labor market characteristics that may be associated with hiring decisions.

A second prominent approach to investigating racial discrimination in employment has relied on in-depth, in-person interviews, which can be effective in eliciting candid discussions about sensitive hiring issues. Kirschenman & Neckerman (1991) , for example, describe employers’ blatant admission of their avoidance of young, inner-city black men in their search for workers. Attributing characteristics such as “lazy” and “unreliable” to this group, the employers included in their study were candid in their expressions of strong racial preferences in considering low wage workers (p. 213; see also Wilson 1996 , Moss & Tilly 2001 ). These in-depth studies have been invaluable in providing detailed accounts of what goes through the minds of employers—at least consciously— as they evaluate members of different groups. However, we must keep in mind that racial attitudes are not always predictive of corresponding behavior ( LaPiere 1934 , Allport 1954 , Pager & Quillian 2005 ). Indeed, Moss & Tilly (2001) report the puzzling finding that “businesses where a plurality of managers complained about black motivation are more likely to hire black men” (p. 151). Hiring decisions (as with decisions to rent a home or approve a mortgage) are influenced by a complex range of factors, racial attitudes being only one. Where understanding persistent racial prejudice and stereotypes is surely an important goal in and of itself, this approach will not necessarily reveal the extent of discrimination in action.

Statistical Analyses

Perhaps the most common approach to studying discrimination is by investigating inequality in outcomes between groups. Rather than focusing on the attitudes or perceptions of actors that may be correlated with acts of discrimination, this approach looks to the possible consequences of discrimination in the unequal distribution of employment, housing, or other social and economic resources. Using large-scale datasets, researchers can identify systematic disparities between groups and chart their direction over time. Important patterns can also be detected through detailed and systematic case studies of individual firms, which often provide a richer array of indicators with which to assess patterns of discrimination (e.g., Castilla 2008 , Petersen & Saporta 2004 , Fernandez & Friedrich 2007 ).

Discrimination in statistical models is often measured as the residual race gap in any outcome that remains after controlling for all other race-related influences. Differences may be identified through the main effect of race, suggesting a direct effect of race on an outcome of interest, or through an interaction between race and one or more human capital characteristics, suggesting differential returns to human capital investments on the basis of race ( Oaxaca 1973 ; National Research Council 2004 , chapter 7). The main liability of this approach is that it is difficult to effectively account for the multitude of factors relevant to unequal outcomes, leaving open the possibility that the disparities we attribute to discrimination may in fact be explained by some other unmeasured cause(s). In statistical analyses of labor market outcomes, for example, even after controlling for standard human capital variables (e.g., education, work experience), a whole host of employment-related characteristics typically remain unaccounted for. Characteristics such as reliability, motivation, interpersonal skills, and punctuality, for example, are each important to finding and keeping a job, but these are characteristics that are often difficult to capture with survey data (see, for example, Farkas & Vicknair 1996 , Farkas 2003 ). Complicating matters further, some potential control variables may themselves be endogenous to the process under investigation. Models estimating credit discrimination, for example, typically include controls for asset accumulation and credit history, which may themselves be in part the byproduct of discrimination ( Yinger 1998 , pp. 26–27). Likewise, controls for work experience or firm tenure may be endogenous to the process of employment discrimination if minorities are excluded from those opportunities necessary to building stable work histories (see Tomaskovic-Devey et al. 2005 ). While statistical models represent an extremely important approach to the study of race differentials, researchers should use caution in making causal interpretations of the indirect measures of discrimination derived from residual estimates. For a more detailed discussion of the challenges and possibilities of statistical approaches to measuring discrimination, see the National Research Council (2004 , chapter 7).

Experimental Approaches to Measuring Discrimination

Experimental approaches to measuring discrimination excel in exactly those areas in which statistical analyses flounder. Experiments allow researchers to measure causal effects more directly by presenting carefully constructed and controlled comparisons. In a laboratory experiment by Dovidio & Gaertner (2000) , for example, subjects (undergraduate psychology students) took part in a simulated hiring experiment in which they were asked to evaluate the application materials for black and white job applicants of varying qualification levels. When applicants were either highly qualified or poorly qualified for the position, there was no evidence of discrimination. When applicants had acceptable but ambiguous qualifications, however, participants were nearly 70% more likely to recommend the white applicant than the black applicant (see also Biernat & Kobrynowicz’s 1997 discussion of shifting standards). 1

Although laboratory experiments offer some of the strongest evidence of causal relationships, we do not know the extent to which their findings relate to the kinds of decisions made in their social contexts—to hire, to rent, to move, for example—that are most relevant to understanding the forms of discrimination that produce meaningful social disparities. Seeking to bring more realism to the investigation, some researchers have moved experiments out of the laboratory and into the field. Field experiments offer a direct measure of discrimination in real-world contexts. In these experiments, typically referred to as audit studies, researchers carefully select, match, and train individuals (called testers) to play the part of a job/apartment-seeker or consumer. By presenting equally qualified individuals who differ only by race or ethnicity, researchers can assess the degree to which racial considerations affect access to opportunities. Audit studies have documented strong evidence of discrimination in the context of employment (for a review, see Pager 2007a ), housing searches ( Yinger 1995 ), car sales ( Ayres & Siegelman 1995 ), applications for insurance ( Wissoker et al. 1998 ), home mortgages ( Turner & Skidmore 1999 ), the provision of medical care ( Schulman et al. 1999 ), and even in hailing taxis ( Ridley et al. 1989 ).

Although experimental methods are appealing in their ability to isolate causal effects, they nevertheless suffer from some important limitations. Critiques of the audit methodology have focused on questions of internal validity (e.g., experimenter effects, the problems of effective tester matching), generalizability (e.g., the use of overqualified testers, the limited sampling frame for the selection of firms to be audited), and the ethics of audit research (see Heckman 1998 , Pager 2007a for a more extensive discussion of these issues). In addition, audit studies are often costly and difficult to implement and can only be used for selective decision points (e.g., hiring decisions but not training, promotion, termination, etc.).

Studies of Law and Legal Records

Since the civil rights era, legal definitions and accounts of discrimination have been central to both popular and scholarly understandings of discrimination. Accordingly, an additional window into the dynamics of discrimination involves the use of legal records from formal discrimination claims. Whether derived from claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the courts, or state-level Fair Employment/Fair Housing Bureaus, official records documenting claims of discrimination can provide unique insight into the patterns of discrimination and antidiscrimination enforcement in particular contexts and over time.

Roscigno (2007) , for example, analyzed thousands of “serious claims” filed with the Civil Rights Commission of Ohio related to both employment and housing discrimination. These claims document a range of discriminatory behaviors, from harassment, to exclusion, to more subtle forms of racial bias. [See also Harris et al. (2005) for a similar research design focusing on federal court claims of consumer discrimination.] Although studies relying on formal discrimination claims necessarily overlook those incidents that go unnoticed or unreported, these records provide a rare opportunity to witness detailed descriptions of discrimination events across a wide range of social domains not typically observed in conventional research designs.

Other studies use discrimination claims, not to assess patterns of discrimination, but to investigate trends in the application of antidiscrimination law. Nielsen & Nelson (2005) provide an overview of research in this area, examining the pathways by which potential claims (or perceived discrimination) develop into formal legal action, or conversely the many points at which potential claims are deflected from legal action. Hirsh & Kornrich (2008) examine how characteristics of the workplace and institutional environment affect variation in the incidence of discrimination claims and their verification by EEOC investigators. Donohue & Siegelman (1991 , 2005 ) analyze discrimination claims from 1970 through 1997 to chart changes in the nature of antidiscrimination enforcement over time. The overall volume of discrimination claims increased substantially over this period, though the composition of claims shifted away from an emphasis on racial discrimination toward a greater emphasis on gender and disability discrimination. Likewise, the types of employment discrimination claims have shifted from an emphasis on hiring discrimination to an overwhelming emphasis on wrongful termination, and class action suits have become increasingly rare. The authors interpret these trends not as indicators of changes in the actual distribution of discrimination events, but rather as reflections of the changing legal environment in which discrimination cases are pursued (including, for example, changes to civil rights law and changes in the receptivity of the courts to various types of discrimination claims), which themselves may have implications for the expression of discrimination ( Donohue & Siegelman 1991 , 2005 ).

Finally, a number of researchers have exploited changes in civil rights and antidiscrimination laws as a source of exogenous variation through which to measure changes in discrimination (see Holzer & Ludwig 2003 ). Freeman (1973 , see table 6 therein), for example, investigates the effectiveness of federal EEO laws by comparing the black-white income gap before and after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Heckman & Payner (1989) use microdata from textile plants in South Carolina to study the effects of race on employment between 1940 and 1980, concluding that federal antidiscrimination policy resulted in a significant improvement in black economic status between 1965 and 1975. More recent studies exploiting changes in the legal context include Kelly & Dobbin (1998) , who examine the effects of changing enforcement regimes on employers’ implementation of diversity initiatives; Kalev & Dobbin (2006) , who examine the relative impact of compliance reviews and lawsuits on the representation of women and minorities in management positions; and a volume edited by Skrentny (2001) , which examines many of the complex and unexpected facets related to the rise, expansion, and impact of affirmative action and diversity policies in the United States and internationally.

Although no research method is without flaws, careful consideration of the range of methods available helps to match one’s research question with the appropriate empirical strategy. Comparisons across studies can help to shed light on the relative strengths and weaknesses of existing methodological approaches (see National Research Council 2004 ). At the same time, one must keep in mind that the nature of discrimination may itself be a moving target, with the forms and patterns of discrimination shifting over time and across domains (see Massey 2005 , p. 148). These complexities challenge our traditional modes of operationalization and encourage us to continue to update and refine our measures to allow for an adequate accounting of contemporary forms of racial discrimination.

IS DISCRIMINATION STILL A PROBLEM?

Simple as it may be, one basic question that preoccupies the contemporary literature on discrimination centers around its continuing relevance. Whereas 50 years ago acts of discrimination were overt and widespread, today it is harder to assess the degree to which everyday experiences and opportunities may be shaped by ongoing forms of discrimination. Indeed, the majority of white Americans believe that a black person today has the same chance at getting a job as an equally qualified white person, and only a third believe that discrimination is an important explanation for why blacks do worse than whites in income, housing, and jobs ( Pager 2007a ). Academic literature has likewise questioned the relevance of discrimination for modern-day outcomes, with the rising importance of skill, structural changes in the economy, and other nonracial factors accounting for increasing amounts of variance in individual outcomes ( Heckman 1998 , Wilson 1978 ). Indeed, discrimination is not the only nor even the most important factor shaping contemporary opportunities. Nevertheless, it is important to understand when and how discrimination does play a role in the allocation of resources and opportunities. In the following discussion, we examine the evidence of discrimination in four domains: employment, housing, credit markets, and consumer markets. Although not an exhaustive review of the literature, this discussion aims to identify the major findings and debates within each of these areas of research.

Although there have been some remarkable gains in the labor force status of racial minorities, significant disparities remain. African Americans are twice as likely to be unemployed as whites (Hispanics are only marginally so), and the wages of both blacks and Hispanics continue to lag well behind those of whites (author’s analysis of Current Population Survey, 2006). A long line of research has examined the degree to which discrimination plays a role in shaping contemporary labor market disparities.

Experimental audit studies focusing on hiring decisions have consistently found strong evidence of racial discrimination, with estimates of white preference ranging from 50% to 240% ( Cross et al. 1989 , Turner et al. 1991 , Fix & Struyk 1993 , Bendick et al. 1994 ; see Pager 2007a for a review). For example, in a study by Bertrand & Mullainathan (2004) , the researchers mailed equivalent resumes to employers in Boston and Chicago using racially identifiable names to signal race (for example, names like Jamal and Lakisha signaled African Americans, while Brad and Emily were associated with whites). 2 White names triggered a callback rate that was 50% higher than that of equally qualified black applicants. Further, their study indicated that improving the qualifications of applicants benefited white applicants but not blacks, thus leading to a wider racial gap in response rates for those with higher skill.

Statistical studies of employment outcomes likewise reveal large racial disparities unaccounted for by observed human capital characteristics. Tomaskovic-Devey et al. (2005) present evidence from a fixed-effects model indicating that black men spend significantly more time searching for work, acquire less work experience, and experience less stable employment than do whites with otherwise equivalent characteristics. Wilson et al. (1995) find that, controlling for age, education, urban location, and occupation, black male high school graduates are 70% more likely to experience involuntary unemployment than whites with similar characteristics and that this disparity increases among those with higher levels of education. At more aggregate levels, research points to the persistence of occupational segregation, with racial minorities concentrated in jobs with lower levels of stability and authority and with fewer opportunities for advancement ( Parcel & Mueller 1983 , Smith 2002 ). Of course, these residual estimates cannot control for all relevant factors, such as motivation, effort, access to useful social networks, and other factors that may produce disparities in the absence of direct discrimination. Nevertheless, these estimates suggest that blacks and whites with observably similar human capital characteristics experience markedly different employment outcomes.

Unlike the cases of hiring and employment, research on wage disparities comes to more mixed conclusions. An audit study by Bendick et al. (1994) finds that, among those testers who were given job offers, whites were offered wages that were on average 15 cents/hour higher than their equally qualified black test partners; audit studies in general, however, provide limited information on wages, as many testers never make it to the wage setting stage of the employment process. Some statistical evidence comes to similar conclusions. Cancio et al. (1996) , for example, find that, controlling for parental background, education, work experience, tenure, and training, white men earn roughly 15% more than comparable blacks (white women earned 6% more than comparable black women). Farkas & Vicknair (1996) , however, using a different dataset, find that the addition of controls for cognitive ability eliminates the racial wage gap for young black and white full-time workers. According to the authors, these findings suggest that racial differences in labor market outcomes are due more to factors that precede labor market entry (e.g., skill acquisition) rather than discrimination within the labor market (see also Neal & Johnson 1996 ).

Overall, then, the literature points toward consistent evidence of discrimination in access to employment, but less consistent evidence of discrimination in wages. Differing methodologies and/or model specification may account for some of the divergent results. But there is also reason to believe that the processes affecting access to employment (e.g., the influence of first impressions, the absence of more reliable information on prospective employees, and minimal legal oversight) may be more subject to discriminatory decision making than those affecting wages. Further, the findings regarding employment and wages may be in part causally related, as barriers to labor market entry will lead to a more select sample of black wage earners, reducing measured racial disparities (e.g., Western & Pettit 2005 ). These findings point to the importance of modeling discrimination as a process rather than a single-point outcome, with disparities in premarket skills acquisition, barriers to labor market entry, and wage differentials each part of a larger employment trajectory and shaped to differing degrees by discrimination.

Residential segregation by race remains a salient feature of contemporary American cities. Indeed, African Americans were as segregated from whites in 1990 as they had been at the start of the twentieth century, and levels of segregation appear unaffected by rising socioeconomic status ( Massey & Denton 1993 ). Although segregation appears to have modestly decreased between 1980 and 2000 ( Logan et al. 2004 ), blacks (and to a lesser extent other minority groups) continue to experience patterns of residential placement markedly different from whites. The degree to which discrimination contributes to racial disparities in housing has been a major preoccupation of social scientists and federal housing agents ( Charles 2003 ).

The vast majority of the work on discrimination in housing utilizes experimental audit data. For example, between 2000 and 2002 the Department of Housing and Urban Development conducted an extensive series of audits measuring housing discrimination against blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans, including nearly 5500 paired tests in nearly 30 metropolitan areas [see Turner et al. (2002) , Turner & Ross (2003a) ; see also Hakken (1979) , Feins & Bratt (1983) , Yinger (1986) , Roychoudhury & Goodman (1992 , 1996 ) for additional, single-city audits of housing discrimination]. The study results reveal bias across multiple dimensions, with blacks experiencing consistent adverse treatment in roughly one in five housing searches and Hispanics experiencing consistent adverse treatment in roughly one out of four housing searches (both rental and sales). 3 Measured discrimination took the form of less information offered about units, fewer opportunities to view units, and, in the case of home buyers, less assistance with financing and steering into less wealthy communities and neighborhoods with a higher proportion of minority residents.

Generally, the results of the 2000 Housing Discrimination Study indicate that aggregate levels of discrimination against blacks declined modestly in both rentals and sales since 1989 (although levels of racial steering increased). Discrimination against Hispanics in housing sales declined, although Hispanics experienced increasing levels of discrimination in rental markets.

Other research using telephone audits further points to a gender and class dimension of racial discrimination in which black women and/or blacks who speak in a manner associated with a lower-class upbringing suffer greater discrimination than black men and/or those signaling a middle-class upbringing ( Massey & Lundy 2001 , Purnell et al. 1999 ). Context also matters in the distribution of discrimination events ( Fischer & Massey 2004 ). Turner & Ross (2005) report that segregation and class steering of blacks occurs most often when either the housing or the office of the real estate agent is in a predominantly white neighborhood. Multi-city audits likewise suggest that the incidence of discrimination varies substantially across metropolitan contexts ( Turner et al. 2002 ).

Moving beyond evidence of exclusionary treatment, Roscigno and colleagues (2007) provide evidence of the various forms of housing discrimination that can extend well beyond the point of purchase (or rental agreement). Examples from a sample of discrimination claims filed with the Civil Rights Commission of Ohio point to the failure of landlords to provide adequate maintenance for housing units, to harassment or physical threats by managers or neighbors, and to the unequal enforcement of a residential association’s rules.

Overall, the available evidence suggests that discrimination in rental and housing markets remains pervasive. Although there are some promising signs of change, the frequency with which racial minorities experience differential treatment in housing searches suggests that discrimination remains an important barrier to residential opportunities. The implications of these trends for other forms of inequality (health, employment, wealth, and inheritance) are discussed below.

Credit Markets

Whites possess roughly 12 times the wealth of African Americans; in fact, whites near the bottom of the income distribution possess more wealth than blacks near the top of the income distribution ( Oliver & Shapiro 1997 , p. 86). Given that home ownership is one of the most significant sources of wealth accumulation, patterns that affect the value and viability of home ownership will have an impact on wealth disparities overall. Accordingly, the majority of work on discrimination in credit markets focuses on the specific case of mortgages.

Available evidence suggests that blacks and Hispanics face higher rejection rates and less favorable terms in securing mortgages than do whites with similar credit characteristics ( Ross & Yinger 1999 ). Oliver & Shapiro (1997 , p. 142) report that blacks pay more than 0.5% higher interest rates on home mortgages than do whites and that this difference persists with controls for income level, date of purchase, and age of buyer.

The most prominent study of the effect of race on rejection rates for mortgage loans is by Munnell et al. (1996) , which uses 1991 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data supplemented by data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, including individual applicants’ financial, employment, and property background variables that lenders use to calculate the applicants’ probability of default. Accounting for a range of variables linked to risk of default, cost of default, loan characteristics, and personal and neighborhood characteristics, they find that black and Hispanic applications were 82% more likely to be rejected than were those from similar whites. Critics argued that the study was flawed on the basis of the quality of the data collected ( Horne 1994 ), model specification problems ( Glennon & Stengel 1994 ), omitted variables ( Zandi 1993 , Liebowitz 1993 , Horne 1994 , Day & Liebowitz 1996 ), and endogenous explanatory variables (see Ross & Yinger 1999 for a full explication of the opposition), although rejoinders suggest that the race results are affected little by these modifications ( Ross & Yinger 1999 ; S.L. Ross & G.M.B. Tootell, unpublished manuscript).

Audit research corroborates evidence of mortgage discrimination, finding that black testers are less likely to receive a quote for a loan than are white testers and that they are given less time with the loan officer, are quoted higher interest rates, and are given less coaching and less information than are comparable white applicants (for a review, see Ross & Yinger 2002 ).

In addition to investigating the race of the applicant, researchers have investigated the extent to which the race of the neighborhood affects lending decisions, otherwise known as redlining. Although redlining is a well-documented factor in the origins of contemporary racial residential segregation (see Massey & Denton 1993 ), studies after the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which outlawed redlining, and since the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which made illegal having a smaller pool of mortgage funds available in minority neighborhoods than in similar white neighborhoods, find little evidence of its persistence ( Benston & Horsky 1991 , Schafer & Ladd 1981 , Munnell et al. 1996 ). This conclusion depends in part, however, on one’s definition of neighborhood-based discrimination. Ross & Yinger (1999) distinguish between process-based and outcome-based redlining, with process-based redlining referring to “whether the probability that a loan application is denied is higher in minority neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods, all else equal” whereas outcome-based redlining refers to smaller amounts of mortgage funding available to minority neighborhoods relative to comparable white neighborhoods. Although evidence on both types of redlining is mixed, several studies indicate that, controlling for demand, poor and/or minority neighborhoods have reduced access to mortgage funding, particularly from mainstream lenders ( Phillips-Patrick & Rossi 1996 , Siskin & Cupingood 1996 ; see also Ladd 1998 for methodological issues in measuring redlining).

As a final concern, competition and deregulation of the banking industry have led to greater variability in conditions of loans, prompting the label of the “new inequality” in lending ( Williams et al. 2005 , Holloway 1998 ). Rather than focusing on rejection rates, these researchers focus on the terms and conditions of loans, in particular whether a loan is favorable or subprime ( Williams et al. 2005 , Apgar & Calder 2005 , Squires 2003 ). Immergluck & Wiles (1999) have called this the “dual-mortgage market” in which prime lending is given to higher income and white areas, while subprime and predatory lending is concentrated in lower-income and minority communities (see also Dymski 2006 , pp. 232–36). Williams et al. (2005) , examining changes between 1993 and 2000, find rapid gains in loans to under-served markets from specialized lenders: 78% of the increase in lending to minority neighborhoods was from subprime lenders, and 72% of the increase in refinance lending to blacks was from subprime lenders. Further, the authors find that “even at the highest income level, blacks are almost three times as likely to get their loans from a subprime lender as are others” (p. 197; see also Calem et al. 2004 ). Although the disproportionate rise of subprime lending in minority communities is not solely the result of discrimination, some evidence suggests that in certain cases explicit racial targeting may be at work. In two audit studies in which creditworthy testers approached sub-prime lenders, whites were more likely to be referred to the lenders’ prime borrowing division than were similar black applicants (see Williams et al. 2005 ). Further, subprime lenders quoted the black applicants very high rates, fees, and closing costs that were not correlated with risk ( Williams et al. 2005 ). 4

Not all evidence associated with credit market discrimination is bad news. Indeed, between 1989 and 2000 the number of mortgage loans to blacks and Hispanics nationwide increased 60%, compared with 16% for whites, suggesting that some convergence is taking place ( Turner et al. 2002 ). Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that blacks and Hispanics continue to face higher rejection rates and receive less favorable terms than whites of equal credit risk. At the time of this writing, the U.S. housing market is witnessing high rates of loan defaults and foreclosures, resulting in large part from the rise in unregulated subprime lending; the consequences of these trends for deepening racial inequalities have yet to be fully explored.

Consumer Markets

Relative to employment, housing, and credit markets, far less research focuses on discrimination in consumer transactions. Nevertheless, there are some salient disparities. A 2005 report by New Jersey Citizen Action using data from two New Jersey lawsuits found that, between 1993 and 2000, blacks and Hispanics were disproportionately subject to financing markup charges at car dealerships, with minority customers paying an average of $339 more than whites with similar credit histories. Harris et al. (2005) analyze federal court cases of consumer discrimination filed from 1990 to 2002, examining the dimensions of subtle and overt degradation (including extended waiting periods, prepay requirements, and higher prices, as well as increased surveillance and verbal and/or physical attacks) and subtle and overt denial of goods and services. They report cases filed in hotels, restaurants, gas stations, grocery/food stores, clothing stores, department stores, home improvement stores, and office equipment stores filed by members of many racial minority groups. Likewise, Feagin & Sikes (1994) document the myriad circumstances in which their middle-class African American respondents report experiences of discrimination, ranging from poor service in restaurants to heightened surveillance in department stores to outright harassment in public accommodations. Together, these studies suggest that discrimination in consumer markets continues to impose both psychic and financial costs on minority consumers.

Much of the empirical work on discrimination in consumer markets has focused specifically on the case of car purchases, which, aside from housing, represent one of the most significant forms of personal consumption expenditures ( Council of Economic Advisers 1997 , table B-14). 5 Ayres & Siegelman (1995) conducted an audit study in Chicago in which testers posed as customers seeking to purchase a new car, approaching dealers with identical rehearsed bargaining strategies. The results show that dealers were less flexible in their negotiations with blacks, resulting in a significant disparity in the ultimate distribution of prices (relative to white men, black men and black women paid on average $1132 and $446 more, respectively) ( Ayres 1995 ). Although analyses using microdata have come to more mixed conclusions about the relevance of race in actual car purchase prices (see Goldberg 1996 , Morton et al. 2003 ), the audit evidence suggests that simply equating information, strategy, and credit background is insufficient to eliminate the effects of race on a customer’s bargaining position.

Although much of the literature on consumer discrimination focuses on the race of the individual customer, a few studies have also investigated the effects of community characteristics on the pricing of goods and services. Graddy (1997) , for example, investigated discrimination in pricing among fast food chains on the basis of the race and income characteristics of a local area. Using information about prices from over 400 fast food restaurants, matched with 1990 census data for zip code–level income, race, crime, and population density, and controlling for a host of neighborhood, business, and state-level characteristics, the author finds that a 50% increase in a zip code’s percent black is associated with a 5% increase in the price of a meal, corresponding to roughly 15 cents per meal. The study is a useful example of how discrimination, especially in consumer markets, might be examined as a function of segregated residential patterns, suggesting a more contextualized approach to studying discrimination (see also Moore & Roux 2006 ).

Evidence of consumer discrimination points to a range of situations in which minority customers receive poorer service or pay more than their white counterparts. Although few individual incidents represent debilitating experiences in and of themselves, the accumulation of such experiences over a lifetime may represent an important source of chronic stress ( Kessler et al. 1990 ) or distrust of mainstream institutions ( Feagin & Sikes 1994 , Bobo & Thompson 2006 ). Indeed, the cumulative costs of racial discrimination are likely to be far higher than any single study can document.

WHAT CAUSES DISCRIMINATION?

Measuring the prevalence of discrimination is difficult; identifying its causes is far more so. Patterns of discrimination can be shaped by influences at many different levels, and the specific mechanisms at work are often difficult to observe. Following Reskin (2003) , in this discussion we consider influences that operate at the individual, organizational, and societal level. Each level of analysis contains its own range of dynamics that may instigate or mediate expressions of discrimination. Although by no means an exhaustive catalog, this discussion provides some insight into the range of factors that may underlie various forms of discriminatory behavior.

Intrapsychic Factors

Much of the theoretical work on discrimination aims to understand what motivates actors to discriminate along racial lines. Although internal motivations are difficult to measure empirically ( Reskin 2003 ), their relevance to the understanding and conceptualization of discrimination has been central ( Quillian 2006 ). Classical works in this area emphasized the role of prejudice or racial animus as key underpinnings of discrimination, with feelings and beliefs about the inferiority or undesirability of certain racial groups associated with subsequent disadvantaging behavior ( Allport 1954 , Pettigrew 1982 ). Conceptualizations of prejudice range from individual-level factors, such as an authoritarian personality ( Adorno et al. 1950 ) or a “taste for discrimination” ( Becker 1957 ), to more instrumental concerns over group competition and status closure ( Blumer 1958 , Blalock 1956 , Jackman 1994 , Tilly 1998 ).

Scholars have characterized changes in the nature of racial prejudice over the past 50 years—as expressed through racial attitudes— as shifting toward the endorsement of equal treatment by race and a repudiation of overt forms of prejudice and discrimination ( Schuman et al. 2001 ). Some, however, question the degree to which these visible changes reflect the true underlying sentiments of white Americans or rather a more superficial commitment to racial equality. Theories of “symbolic racism” ( Kinder & Sears 1981 ), “modern racism” ( McConahay 1986 ), and “laissez-faire racism” ( Bobo et al. 1997 ), for example, each point to the disconnect between attitudes of principle (e.g., racial equality as an ideal) and policy attitudes (e.g., government action to achieve those ideals) as indicative of limited change in underlying racial attitudes (but see Sniderman et al. 1991 for a countervailing view). These new formulations of prejudice include a blending of negative affect and beliefs about members of certain groups with more abstract political ideologies that reinforce the status quo.

Whereas sociological research on prejudice is based largely on explicit attitudes measured through large-scale surveys, psychologists have increasingly turned to measures of implicit prejudice, or forms of racial bias that operate without conscious awareness yet can influence cognition, affect, and behavior ( Greenwald & Banaji 1995 , Fazio & Olson 2003 ). Experiments in which subjects are unconsciously primed with words or images associated with African Americans reveal strong negative racial associations, even among those who consciously repudiate prejudicial beliefs. Whereas the links between explicit and implicit forms of prejudice and between implicit prejudice and behavior remain less well understood, the presence of widespread unconscious racial biases has been firmly established across a multitude of contexts (see Lane et al. 2007 ).

Parallel to the study of racial prejudice (the more affective component of racial attitudes) is a rich history of research on racial stereotypes (a more cognitive component). Whereas many general racial attitudes have shifted toward more egalitarian beliefs, the content and valence of racial stereotypes appears to have changed little over time ( Devine & Elliot 1995 , Lane et al. 2007 ). 6 White Americans continue to associate African Americans with characteristics such as lazy, violence-prone, and welfare-dependent and Hispanics with characteristics such as poor, unintelligent, and unpatriotic ( Smith 1991 , Bobo & Kluegel 1997 ). Culturally embedded stereotypes about racial differences are reflected in both conscious and unconscious evaluations ( Greenwald & Banaji 1995 ) and may set the stage for various forms of discriminatory treatment ( Farley et al. 1994 ).

Researchers differ in perspectives regarding the cognitive utility and accuracy of stereotypes. Whereas many social psychologists view stereotypes as “faulty or inflexible generalization[s]” ( Allport 1954 ), economic theories of statistical discrimination emphasize the cognitive utility of group estimates as a means of dealing with the problems of uncertainty ( Phelps 1972 , Arrow 1972 ). Group-level estimates of difficult-to-observe characteristics (such as average productivity levels or risk of loan default) may provide useful information in the screening of individual applicants. Although some important research questions the accuracy of group-level estimates (e.g., Bielby & Baron 1986 ), the mechanism proposed in models of statistical discrimination—rational actors operating under conditions of uncertainty—differ substantially from those based on racial prejudice. Indeed, much of the literature across the various domains discussed above attempts to discern whether discrimination stems primarily from racial animus or from these more instrumental adaptations to information shortages (e.g., Ayres & Siegelman 1995 ).

The various factors discussed here, including prejudice, group competition, modern racism, stereotypes, and statistical discrimination, represent just a few of the varied intrapsychic influences that may affect discrimination. It is important to emphasize, however, that the behavioral manifestation of discrimination does not allow one readily to assume any particular underlying intrapsychic motivation, just as a lack of discrimination does not presume the absence of prejudice (see Merton 1970 ). Continued efforts to measure the processes by which internal states translate into discriminatory action [or what Reskin (2003) calls a shift from “motives” to “mechanisms”] will help to illuminate the underlying causes of contemporary racial discrimination.

Organizational Factors

Beyond the range of interpersonal and intrapsychic factors that may influence discrimination, a large body of work directs our attention toward the organizational contexts in which individual actors operate. Baron & Bielby’s (1980) classic article established a central role for organizations in stratification research, arguing for a framework that links “the ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ dimensions of work organization and inequality” (p. 738). More recent theoretical and empirical advances in the field of discrimination have maintained a strong interest in the role of organizations as a key structural context shaping inequality.

Tilly’s (1998) analysis of durable inequality emphasizes the importance of organizational dynamics in creating and maintaining group boundaries. “Durable inequality arises because people who control access to value-producing resources solve pressing organizational problems by means of categorical distinctions” (p. 8). Although actors “rarely set out to manufacture inequality as such,” their efforts to secure access to valued resources by distinguishing between insiders and outsiders, ensuring solidarity and loyalty, and monopolizing important knowledge often make use of (and thereby reinforce the salience of) established categories in the service of facilitating organizational goals (p. 11). Tilly’s analysis places organizational structure at the center stage, arguing that “the reduction or intensification of racist, sexist, or xenophobic attitudes will have relatively little impact on durable inequality, whereas the introduction of new organizational forms … will have great impact” (p. 15). In line with these arguments, an important line of sociological research has sought to map the dimensions of organizational structures that may attenuate or exacerbate the use of categorical distinctions and, correspondingly, the incidence of discrimination ( Vallas 2003 ).

Much of the empirical literature exploring organizational mechanisms of discrimination has focused specifically on how organizational practices mediate the cognitive biases and stereotypes of actors ( Baron & Pfeffer 1994 ). Indeed, Reskin (2000) argues that “the proximate cause of most discrimination is whether and how personnel practices in work organizations constrain the biasing effects of… automatic cognitive processes” (p. 320). Petersen & Saporta (2004) take a bolder stance, starting with the assumption that “discrimination is widespread, and employers discriminate if they can get away with it” (p. 856). Rather than asking why employers discriminate, then, these authors look to the “opportunity structure for discrimination” (in their case, features of job ladders within organizations) that allow or inhibit the expression of discriminatory tendencies (pp. 855–56).

In the following discussion, we briefly consider several important themes relevant to the literature on organizational mechanisms of discrimination. In particular, we examine how organizational structure and practices influence the cognitive and social psychological processes of decision makers (the role of formalized organizational procedures and diversity initiatives), how organizational practices create disparate outcomes that may be independent of decision makers (the role of networks), and how organizations respond to their broader environment.

The role of formalization

One important debate in this literature focuses on the degree to which formalized organizational procedures can mitigate discrimination by limiting individual discretion. The case of the military ( Moskos & Butler 1996 ), for example, and the public sector more generally ( DiPrete & Soule 1986 , Moulton 1990 ) provide examples in which highly rationalized systems of hiring, promotion, and remuneration are associated with an increasing representation of minorities, greater racial diversity in positions of authority, and a smaller racial wage gap. Likewise, in the private sector, formal and systematic protocols for personnel management decisions are associated with increases in the representation of racial minorities ( Reskin et al. 1999 , Szafran 1982 , Mittman 1992 ), and the use of concrete performance indicators and formalized evaluation systems has been associated with reductions in racial bias in performance evaluations ( Krieger 1995 , Reskin 2000 ).

Individual discretion has been associated with the incidence of discrimination in credit markets as well. For example, Squires (1994) finds that credit history irregularities on policy applications were often selectively overlooked in the case of white applicants. Conversely, Gates et al. (2002) report that the use of automated underwriting systems (removing lender discretion) was associated with a nearly 30% increase in the approval rate for minority and low-income clients and at the same time more accurately predicted default than traditional methods. These findings suggest that formalized procedures can help to reduce racial bias in ways that are consistent with goals of organizational efficiency.

At the same time, increased bureaucratization does not necessarily mitigate discriminatory effects. According to Bielby (2000) , rules and procedures are themselves subject to the influence of groups inside and outside the organization who “mobilize resources in a way that advances their interests,” with competition between groups potentially undermining the neutrality of bureaucratic procedures ( Bielby 2000 , p. 123; see also Ross & Yinger 2002 , Acker 1989 ). Additionally, there is evidence that formalized criteria are often selectively enforced, with greater flexibility or leeway applied in the case of majority groups ( Wilson et al. 1999 , Squires 1994 ). Likewise, indications of racial bias in performance evaluations cast doubt on the degree to which even formalized assessments of work quality can escape the influence of race ( McKay & McDaniel 2006 ). The degree to which formalization can reduce or eliminate discrimination, thus, remains open to debate, with effects depending on the specific context of implementation.

Diversity initiatives

Since the passage of Title VII in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, most large organizations have taken active steps to signal compliance with antidiscrimination laws. Deliberate organizational efforts to address issues of discrimination (or the perception thereof), either in disparate treatment or disparate impact, often are labeled as diversity initiatives, and these practices are widespread. Winterle (1992) cites a 1991 survey of organizations demonstrating that roughly two-thirds provided diversity training for managers, half provided a statement on diversity from top management, and roughly one-third provided diversity training for employees and/or had a diversity task force (see also Wheeler 1995 , Edelman et al. 2001 ). Not all such initiatives, however, have any proven relationship to actual diversity outcomes. Kalev et al. (2006) examine the efficacy of active organizational efforts to promote diversity, focusing specifically on three of the most common organizational practices: the implementation of organizational accountability by creating new positions or taskforces designed specifically to address diversity issues, managerial bias training, and mentoring and network practices. They find that practices designed to increase organizational authority and accountability are the most effective in increasing the number of women and minorities in management positions. Networking and mentoring programs appear somewhat useful, whereas programs focused on reducing bias (e.g., diversity training) have little effect. These results suggest that organizational initiatives to reduce racial disparities can be effective, but primarily when implemented with concrete goals to which organizational leadership is held accountable. 7

Taking a broader look at race-targeted employment policies, Holzer & Neumark (2000) investigate the effects of affirmative action on the recruitment and employment of minorities and women. They find that affirmative action is associated with increases in the number of recruitment and screening practices used by employers, increases in the number of minority applicants and employees, and increases in employers’ tendencies to provide training and formal evaluations of employees. Although the use of affirmative action in hiring is associated with somewhat weaker credentials among minority hires, actual job performance appears unaffected.

The role of networks

In addition to examining how organizational policies and practices shape the behavior of decision makers and gatekeepers, researchers must acknowledge that some mechanisms relevant to the perpetuation of categorical inequality might operate independently of the actions of individuals. Indeed, many organizational policies or procedures can impose disparate impact along racial lines with little direct influence from individual decision makers. The case of networks represents one important example. The role of networks in hiring practices is extremely well documented, with networks generally viewed as an efficient strategy for matching workers to employers with advantages for both job seekers (e.g., Granovetter 1995 ) and employers (e.g., Fernandez et al. 2000 ). At the same time, given high levels of social segregation (e.g., McPherson et al. 2001 ), the use of referrals is likely to reproduce the existing racial composition of the company and to exclude members of those groups not already well represented ( Braddock & McPartland 1987 ). In an analysis of noncollege jobs, controlling for spatial segregation, occupational segregation, city, and firm size, Mouw (2002) finds that the use of employee referrals in predominantly white firms reduces the probability of a black hire by nearly 75% relative to the use of newspaper ads. 8 Petersen et al. (2000) using data on a high-technology organization over a 10-year period find that race differences in hiring are eliminated when the method of referral is considered, suggesting that the impact of social networks on hiring outcomes is strong and may be more important than any direct action taken by organization members. Irrespective of an employer’s personal racial attitudes, the use of employee referrals is likely to reproduce the existing racial composition of an organization, restricting valuable employment opportunities from excluded groups (see also Royster 2003 , Waldinger & Lichter 2003 ).

Networks and network composition may matter not only for the purposes of obtaining information and referrals for jobs, but also within jobs for the purposes of informal mentoring, contacts, and relevant information important to advancement ( Ibarra 1993 , Grodsky & Pager 2001 ). Mechanisms of homosocial reproduction, or informal preferences for members of one’s own group, can lead to network configurations of informal mentorship and sponsorship that contribute to the preservation of existing status hierarchies ( Kanter 1977 ; see also Elliot & Smith 2001 , Sturm 2001 ). The wide-ranging economic consequences that follow from segregated social networks corresponds to what Loury (2001 , p. 452) refers to as the move from “discrimination in contract” to “discrimination in contact.” According to Loury, whereas earlier forms of discrimination primarily reflected explicit differences in the treatment of racial groups, contemporary forms of discrimination are more likely to be perpetuated through informal networks of opportunity that, though ostensibly race-neutral, systematically disadvantage members of historically excluded groups.

Organizations in context

Much of the research discussed above considers the organization as a context in which decisions and procedures that affect discriminatory treatment are shaped. But organizations themselves are likewise situated within a larger context, with prevailing economic, legal, and social environments conditioning organizational responses ( Reskin 2003 ). When labor markets expand or contract, organizations shift their recruitment and termination/retention strategies in ways that adapt to these broader forces (e.g., Freeman & Rodgers 1999 ). When antidiscrimination laws are passed or amended, organizations respond in ways that signal compliance ( Dobbin et al. 1993 ), with the impact of these measures varying according to shifting levels or strategies of government enforcement ( Kalev & Dobbin 2006 , Leonard 1985 ). At the same time, organizations are not merely passive recipients of the larger economic and legal context. In the case of the legal environment, for example, organizations play an active role in interpreting and shaping the ways that laws are translated into practice. Edelman (1992) , Dobbin et al. (1993) , and Dobbin & Sutton (1998) have each demonstrated ways in which the U.S. federal government’s lack of clear guidance regarding compliance with antidiscrimination laws and regulations allowed organizations to establish and legitimate their own compliance measures. According to Edelman (1992 , p. 1542), “organizations do not simply ignore or circumvent weak law, but rather construct compliance in a way that, at least in part, fits their interests.” Organizational actors, then, can wind up playing the dual role of both defining and demonstrating compliance, with important implications for the nature, strength, and impact of antidiscrimination laws and likewise for the patterns of discrimination that emerge in these contexts.

Organizations occupy a unique position with respect to shaping patterns of discrimination. They mediate both the cognitive and attitudinal biases of actors within the organization as well as the influence of broader economic and legal pressures applied from beyond. Recognizing the specific features of organizational action that affect patterns of discrimination represents one of the most important contributions of sociological research in this area. To date, the vast majority of organizational research has focused on the context of labor markets; investigations of organizational functioning in other domains (e.g., real estate, retail sales, lending institutions) would do much to further our understanding of how collective policies and practices shape the expression of discrimination.

Structural Factors

The majority of research on discrimination focuses on dynamics between individuals or small groups. It is easiest to conceptualize discrimination in terms of the actions of specific individuals, with the attitudes, prejudices, and biases of majority group members shaping actions toward minority group members. And yet, it is important to recognize that each of these decisions takes place within a broader social context. Members of racial minority groups may be systematically disadvantaged not only by the willful acts of particular individuals, but because the prevailing system of opportunities and constraints favors the success of one group over another. In addition to the organizational factors discussed above, broader structural features of a society can contribute to unequal outcomes through the ordinary functioning of its cultural, economic, and political systems (see also National Research Council 2004 , chapter 11). The term structural discrimination has been used loosely in the literature, along with concepts such as institutional discrimination and structural or institutional racism, to refer to the range of policies and practices that contribute to the systematic disadvantage of members of certain groups. In the following discussion, we consider three distinct conceptualizations of structural discrimination, each of which draws our attention to the broader, largely invisible contexts in which group-based inequalities may be structured and reproduced.

A legacy of historical discrimination

This first conceptualization of structural discrimination stands furthest from conventional definitions of discrimination as an active and ongoing form of racial bias. By focusing on the legacies of past discrimination, this emphasis remains agnostic about the relevance of contemporary forms of discrimination that may further heighten or exacerbate existing inequalities. And yet, the emphasis on structural discrimination—as opposed to just inequality— directs our attention to the array of discriminatory actions that brought about present day inequalities. The origins of contemporary racial wealth disparities, for example, have well-established links to historical practices of redlining, housing covenants, racially targeted federal housing policies, and other forms of active discrimination within housing and lending markets (e.g., Massey & Denton 1993 ). Setting aside evidence of continuing discrimination in each of these domains, these historical practices themselves are sufficient to maintain extraordinarily high levels of wealth inequality through the intergenerational transition of advantage (the ability to invest in good neighborhoods, good schools, college, housing assistance for adult children, etc.) ( Oliver & Shapiro 1997 ). According to Conley (1999) , even if we were to eliminate all contemporary forms of discrimination, huge racial wealth disparities would persist, which in turn underlie racial inequalities in schooling, employment, and other social domains (see also Lieberson & Fuguitt 1967 ). Recent work based on formal modeling suggests that the effects of past discrimination, particularly as mediated by ongoing forms of social segregation, are likely to persist well into the future, even in the absence of ongoing discrimination (see Bowles et al. 2007 , Lundberg & Startz 1998 ).

These historical sources of discrimination may become further relevant, not only in their perpetuation of present-day inequalities, but also through their reinforcement of contemporary forms of stereotypes and discrimination. As in Myrdal’s (1944) “principle of cumulation,” structural disadvantages (e.g., poverty, joblessness, crime) come to be seen as cause, rather than consequence, of persistent racial inequality, justifying and reinforcing negative racial stereotypes (pp. 75–78). Bobo et al. (1997 , p. 23) argue that “sharp black-white economic inequality and residential segregation…provide the kernel of truth needed to regularly breathe new life into old stereotypes about putative black proclivities toward involvement in crime, violence, and welfare dependency.” The perpetuation of racial inequality through structural and institutional channels can thus be conducive to reinforcing negative racial stereotypes and shifting blame toward minorities for their own disadvantage (see also Sunstein 1991 , p. 32; Fiske et al. 2002 ).

Contemporary state policies and practices

This second conceptualization of structural discrimination accords more with conventional understandings of the term, placing its emphasis on those contemporary policies and practices that systematically disadvantage certain groups. Paradigmatic cases of structural discrimination include the caste system in India, South Africa under apartheid, or the United States during Jim Crow—each of these representing societies in which the laws and cultural institutions manufactured and enforced systematic inequalities based on group membership. Although the vestiges of Jim Crow have long since disappeared in the contemporary United States, there remain features of American society that may contribute to persistent forms of structural discrimination (see Massey 2007 , Feagin 2006 ).

One example is the provision of public education in the United States. According to Orfield & Lee (2005 , p. 18), more than 60% of black and Latino students attend high poverty schools, compared with 30% of Asians and 18% of whites. In addition to funding disparities across these schools, based on local property taxes, the broader resources of schools in poor neighborhoods are substantially limited: Teachers in poor and minority schools are likely to have less experience, shorter tenure, and emergency credentials rather than official teaching certifications ( Orfield & Lee 2005 ).At the same time, schools in high poverty neighborhoods are faced with a greater incidence of social problems, including teen pregnancy, gang involvement, and unstable households ( Massey & Denton 1993 ). With fewer resources, these schools are expected to manage a wider array of student needs. The resulting lower quality of education common in poor and minority school districts places these students at a disadvantage in competing for future opportunities ( Massey 2006 ).

A second relevant example comes from the domain of criminal justice policy. Although evidence of racial discrimination at selective decision points in the criminal justice system is weak ( Sampson & Lauritsen 1997 ), the unprecedented growth of the criminal justice system over the past 30 years has had a vastly disproportionate effect on African Americans. 9 Currently, nearly one out of three young black men will spend time in prison during his lifetime, a figure that rises to nearly 60% among young black high school dropouts ( Bonczar & Beck 1997 , Pettit & Western 2004 ). Given the wide array of outcomes negatively affected by incarceration—including family formation, housing, employment, political participation, and health—decisions about crime policy, even when race-neutral in content, represent a critical contemporary source of racial disadvantage ( Pattillo et al. 2003 , Pager 2007b , Manza & Uggen 2006 ).

These examples point to contexts in which ostensibly race-neutral policies can structure and reinforce existing social inequalities. According to Omi & Winant (1994) , “through policies which are explicitly or implicitly racial, state institutions organize and enforce the racial politics of everyday life. For example, they enforce racial (non)discrimination policies, which they administer, arbitrate, and encode in law. They organize racial identities by means of education, family law, and the procedures for punishment, treatment, and surveillance of the criminal, deviant and ill” (p. 83). Even without any willful intent, policies can play an active role in designating the beneficiaries and victims of a particular system of resource allocation, with important implications for enduring racial inequalities.

Accumulation of disadvantage

This third category of structural discrimination draws our attention to how the effects of discrimination in one domain or at one point in time may have consequences for a broader range of outcomes. Through spillover effects across domains, processes of cumulative (dis)advantage across the life course, and feedback effects, the effects of discrimination can intensify and, in some cases, become self-sustaining.

Although traditional measures of discrimination focus on individual decision points (e.g., the decision to hire, to rent, to offer a loan), the effects of these decisions may extend into other relevant domains. Discrimination in credit markets, for example, contributes to higher rates of loan default, with negative implications for minority entrepreneurship, home ownership, and wealth accumulation ( Oliver & Shapiro 1997 ). Discrimination in housing markets contributes to residential segregation, which is associated with concentrated disadvantage ( Massey & Denton 1993 ), poor health outcomes ( Williams 2004 ), and limited educational and employment opportunities ( Massey & Fischer 2006 , Fernandez & Su 2004 ). Single point estimates of discrimination within a particular domain may substantially underestimate the cumulative effects of discrimination over time and the ways in which discrimination in one domain can trigger disadvantage in many others.

In addition to linkages across domains, the effects of discrimination may likewise span forward in time, with the cumulative impact of discrimination magnifying initial effects. Blau & Ferber (1987) , for example, point to how the channeling of men and women into different job types at career entry “will virtually ensure sex differences in productivity, promotion opportunities, and pay” (p. 51). Small differences in starting points can have large effects over the life course (and across generations), even in the absence of continuing discrimination [for a rich discussion of cumulative (dis)advantage, see DiPrete & Eirich (2006) ].

Finally, anticipated or experienced discrimination can lead to adaptations that intensify initial effects. Research points to diminished effort or valuation of schooling ( Ogbu 1991 ), lower investments in skill-building ( Farmer & Terrell 1996 ), and reduced labor force participation ( Castillo 1998 ) as possible responses to perceived discrimination against oneself or members of one’s group. These adaptations can easily be coded as choices rather than constraints, as characteristics to be controlled for in estimates of discrimination rather than included as one part of that estimate. And yet, for an understanding of the full range of effects associated with discrimination, these indirect pathways and self-fulfilling prophesies should likewise be examined (see Loury 2002 , pp. 26– 33).

A focus on structural and institutional sources of discrimination encourages us to consider how opportunities may be allocated on the basis of race in the absence of direct prejudice or willful bias. It is difficult to capture the structural and cumulative consequences of discrimination using traditional research designs; advances in this area will require creative new approaches (see National Research Council 2004 , chapter 11). Nevertheless, for an accurate accounting of the impact of discrimination, we must recognize how historical practices and contemporary policies may contribute to ongoing and cumulative forms of racial discrimination.

Discrimination is not the only cause of racial disparities in the United States. Indeed, persistent inequality between racial and ethnic groups is the product of complex and multifaceted influences. Nevertheless, the weight of existing evidence suggests that discrimination does continue to affect the allocation of contemporary opportunities; and, further, given the often covert, indirect, and cumulative nature of these effects, our current estimates may in fact understate the degree to which discrimination contributes to the poor social and economic outcomes of minority groups. Although great progress has been made since the early 1960s, the problem of racial discrimination remains an important factor in shaping contemporary patterns of social and economic inequality.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Barbara Reskin, Douglas Massey, Frank Dobbin, and Lincoln Quillian for their generous comments and suggestions. Support for this research came from grants from NSF (SES-0547810) and NIH (K01-HD053694). The second author also received support from an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship.

1 Dovidio & Gaertner (2000) also examined changes over time, comparing parallel data collected at two time points, 1989 and 1999. Although the level of self-reported prejudice declined significantly over the decade, the extent of discrimination did not change.

2 Field experiments that rely on contact by mail (rather than in person) are referred to as correspondence studies. Although these studies are typically limited to a more restricted range of job openings than are in-person audit studies, and although the signaling of race is some what more complicated (see Fryer & Levitt 2004 for a discussion of the race-class association among distinctively African American names), these studies are not vulnerable to the concerns over experimenter effects that are relevant in in-person studies (see Heckman 1998 ). For a review of correspondence studies in international contexts, including a range of ethnic groups, see Riach & Rich (2002) .

3 Asian renters and homebuyers experienced similar levels of consistent adverse treatment, though the effects were not statistically significant for renters. The highest levels of discrimination among the groups was experienced by Native American renters, for whom reduced access to information comprised the bulk of differential treatment ( Turner & Ross 2003a , b ).

4 See Stuart (2003) for a useful discussion of how economic risk became defined in the mortgage lending industry and how this approach has impacted discrimination.

5 There is also a growing literature in economics that focuses on online auctions (e.g., eBay®), allowing researchers to test theories about consumer discrimination in more highly controlled (but real-world) environments (e.g., List 2004 ).

6 Indeed, social psychological research points to the hardwired tendency toward categorization, with preferences for in-groups and the stereotyping of out–groups a natural outgrowth of human cognition ( Fiske 1998 ). Although the social context certainly shapes the boundaries of social groups and the content of stereotypes, this cognitive impulse likely contributes to the resilience of social categorization and stereotypes ( Massey 2007 ).

7 Note, however, that the creation of new positions for diversity management may have its own disadvantages, inadvertently diverting minority employees away from more desirable management trajectories. Collins (1989 , 1993 ), for example, finds that upwardly mobile blacks are frequently tracked into racialized management jobs or into jobs that specifically deal with diversity issues, with black customers, or with relations with the black community. According to Collins, these jobs are also characterized by greater vulnerability to downsizing and fewer opportunities for advancement.

8 Mouw (2002) does not find evidence that this sorting process affects aggregate employment rates, although the segregation of job opportunities is itself associated with racial differences in job quality and stability ( Parcel & Mueller 1983 ).

9 The case of drug policy and enforcement is one area for which evidence of direct racial discrimination is stronger (see Beckett et al. 2005 , Tonry 1995 ).

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

LITERATURE CITED

Acker J. Doing Comparable Worth: Gender, Class, and Pay Equity. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press; 1989. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Adorno T, Frankel-Brunswik E, Levinson D, Sanford R. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper; 1950. [ Google Scholar ]
Allport G. The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books; 1954. [ Google Scholar ]
Apgar WC, Calder A. The dual mortgage market: the persistence of discrimination in mortgage lending. In: Briggs X Souzade., editor. The Geography of Opportunity: Race and Housing Choice in Metropolitan America. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press; 2005. pp. 101–126. [ Google Scholar ]
Arrow KJ. Models of job discrimination. In: Pascal AH, editor. Racial Discrimination in Economic Life. Lexington, MA: Heath; 1972. pp. 83–102. [ Google Scholar ]
Ayres I. Further evidence of discrimination in new car negotiations and estimates of its cause. Mich. Law Rev. 1995; 94 (1):109–147. [ Google Scholar ]
Ayres I, Siegelman P. Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car. Am. Econ. Rev. 1995; 85 :304–321. [ Google Scholar ]
Baron JN, Bielby WT. Bringing the firm back in: stratification, segmentation, and the organization of work. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1980; 45 :737–765. [ Google Scholar ]
Baron JN, Pfeffer J. The social psychology of organizations and inequality. Soc. Psychol. Q. 1994; 57 :190–209. [ Google Scholar ]
Becker GS. The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press; 1957. [ Google Scholar ]
Beckett K, Nyrop K, Pfingst L, Bowen M. Drug use, drug arrests, and the question of race: lessons from Seattle. Soc. Probl. 2005; 52 :419–441. [ Google Scholar ]
Bendick M, Jackson C, Reinoso V. Measuring employment discrimination through controlled experiments. Rev. Black Polit. Econ. 1994; 23 :25–48. [ Google Scholar ]
Benston GJ, Horsky D. The relationship between the demand and supply of home financing and neighborhood characteristics: an empirical study of mortgage redlining. J. Financ. Serv. Res. 1991; 5 :235–260. [ Google Scholar ]
Bertrand M, Mullainathan S. Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. Am. Econ. Rev. 2004; 94 :991–1013. [ Google Scholar ]
Bielby WT. Minimizing workplace gender and racial bias. Contemp. Sociol. 2000; 29 :120–129. [ Google Scholar ]
Bielby WT, Baron J. Men and women at work: sex segregation and statistical discrimination. Am. J. Sociol. 1986; 91 :759–799. [ Google Scholar ]
Biernat M, Kobrynowicz D. Gender- and race-based standards of competence: lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1997; 72 (3):544–557. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Blalock HM. Economic discrimination and negro increase. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1956; 16 (4):584–588. [ Google Scholar ]
Blau F, Ferber M. Occupations and earnings of women workers. In: Koziara KS, Moskow MH, Tanner LD, editors. Working Women: Past, Present, Future. Washington, DC: Bur. Natl. Aff; 1987. pp. 37–68. [ Google Scholar ]
Blumer H. Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pac. Sociol. Rev. 1958; 1 :3–7. [ Google Scholar ]
Bobo L, Kluegel J. Status, ideology, and dimensions of whites’ racial beliefs and attitudes: progress and stagnation. In: Tuch SA, Martin JK, editors. Racial Attitudes in the 1990s: Continuity and Change. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1997. pp. 93–120. [ Google Scholar ]
Bobo L, Kluegel J, Smith R. Laissez-faire racism: the crystallization of a ‘kindler, gentler’ anti-black ideology. In: Tuch SA, Martin JK, editors. Racial Attitudes in the 1990s: Continuity and Change. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1997. pp. 15–42. [ Google Scholar ]
Bobo L, Thompson V. Unfair by design: the war on drugs, race, and the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Soc. Res. 2006; 73 (2):445–472. [ Google Scholar ]
Bonczar TP, Beck AJ. Lifetime likelihood of going to state or federal prison. Washington, DC: Sp. Rep., US Dep. Just., Bur. Just. Stat.; 1997. Mar, [ Google Scholar ]
Bowles S, Loury G, Sethi R. Is equal opportunity enough? A theory of persistent group inequality; Work. Pap. Presented at Santa Fe Inst.; April 20; 2007. http://www.santafe.edu/~bowles/IsEqualityEnough2007.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
Braddock JH, McPartland JM. How minorities continue to be excluded from equal employment opportunities: research on labor market and institutional barriers. J. Soc. Issues. 1987; 43 (1):5–39. [ Google Scholar ]
Calem PS, Gillen K, Wachter S. The neighborhood distribution of subprime mortgage lending. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ. 2004; 29 :393–410. [ Google Scholar ]
Cancio AS, Evans TD, Maume DJ. Reconsidering the declining significance of race: racial differences in early career wages. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1996; 61 :541–556. [ Google Scholar ]
Castilla E. Gender, race, and meritocracy in organizational careers. Am. J. Sociol. 2008 In press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Castillo MD. Persons outside the labor force who want a job. Mon. Labor Rev. 1998; 121 :34–42. [ Google Scholar ]
Charles CZ. The dynamics of racial residential segregation. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2003; 29 :167–207. [ Google Scholar ]
Collins S. The marginalization of black executives. Soc. Probl. 1989; 36 :317–331. [ Google Scholar ]
Collins S. Blacks on the bubble: the vulnerability of black executives in a white corporation. Sociol. Q. 1993; 34 :429–447. [ Google Scholar ]
Conley D. Being Black, Living in the Red: Race, Wealth, and Social Policy in America. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
Cross H, Kenney G, Mell J, Zimmerman W. Differential Treatment of Hispanic and Anglo Job Seekers: Hiring Practices in Two Cities. Washington, DC: Urban Inst; 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
Council of Economic Advisers. Annual Report. Washington, DC: USGPO; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
Day T, Liebowitz SJ. Mortgages, minorities, and HMDA; April; Presented at Fed. Reserve Bank Chicago.1996. [ Google Scholar ]
Devine PG, Elliot AJ. Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy revisited. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1995; 21 :1139–1150. [ Google Scholar ]
DiPrete TA, Eirich GM. Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: a review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006; 32 :271–297. [ Google Scholar ]
DiPrete TA, Soule WT. The organization of career lines: equal employment opportunity and status advancement in a federal bureaucracy. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1986; 51 :295–309. [ Google Scholar ]
Dobbin FR, Sutton JR. The strength of a weak state: the employment rights revolution and the rise of human resources management divisions. Am. J. Sociol. 1998; 104 :441–476. [ Google Scholar ]
Dobbin FR, Sutton JR, Meyer JW, Scott WR. Equal opportunity law and the construction of internal labor markets. Am. J. Sociol. 1993; 99 :396–427. [ Google Scholar ]
Donohue JJ, III, Siegelman P. The changing nature of employment discrimination litigation. Stanford Law Rev. 1991; 43 :983–1033. [ Google Scholar ]
Donohue JJ, III, Siegelman P. The evolution of employment discrimination law in the 1990s: a preliminary empirical investigation. In: Nielsen LB, Nelson RL, editors. Handbook of Employment Discrimination Research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2005. pp. 261–284. [ Google Scholar ]
Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL. Aversive racism and selection decisions. Psychol. Sci. 2000; 11 (4):315–319. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dymski G. Discrimination in the credit and housing markets: findings and challenges. In: Rodgers W, editor. Handbook on the Economics of Discrimination. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar; 2006. pp. 215–259. [ Google Scholar ]
Edelman LB. Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: organizational mediation of civil rights law. Am. J. Sociol. 1992; 97 :1531–1576. [ Google Scholar ]
Edelman LB, Fuller SR, Mara-Drita I. Diversity rhetoric and the managerialization of law. Am. J. Sociol. 2001; 106 :1589–1641. [ Google Scholar ]
Elliott JR, Smith RA. Ethnic matching of supervisors to subordinate work groups: findings on bottom-up ascription and social closure. Soc. Probl. 2001; 48 :258–276. [ Google Scholar ]
Farkas G. Cognitive skills and noncognitive traits and behaviors in stratification processes. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2003; 29 :541–562. [ Google Scholar ]
Farkas G, Vicknair K. Appropriate tests of racial wage discrimination require controls for cognitive skill: comment on Cancio, Evans, and Maume. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1996; 61 :557–560. [ Google Scholar ]
Farley R, Steeh C, Krysan M, Jackson T, Reeves K. Stereotypes and segregation: neighborhoods in the Detroit area. Am. J. Sociol. 1994; 100 (3):750–780. [ Google Scholar ]
Farmer A, Terrell D. Discrimination, Bayesian updating of employer beliefs, and human capital accumulation. Econ. Inq. 1996; 34 (2):204–219. [ Google Scholar ]
Fazio RH, Olson MA. Implicit measures in social cognition: their meaning and use. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2003; 54 :297–327. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Feagin JR. Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression. New York: Routledge; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
Feagin JR, Sikes MP. Living with Racism: The Black Middle-Class Experience. Boston, MA: Beacon; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
Feins JD, Bratt RG. Barred in Boston: racial discrimination in housing. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 1983; 49 :347–357. [ Google Scholar ]
Fernandez RM, Castilla EJ, Moore P. Social capital at work: networks and employment at a phone center. Am. J. Sociol. 2000; 105 (5):1288–1356. [ Google Scholar ]
Fernandez RM, Friedrich C. Job queues: gender and race at the application interface; Work. Pap., MIT Sloan Sch. Manag..2007. [ Google Scholar ]
Fernandez RM, Su C. Space in the study of labor markets. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2004; 30 :545–569. [ Google Scholar ]
Fischer MJ, Massey DS. The ecology of racial discrimination. City Commun. 2004; 3 (3):221–241. [ Google Scholar ]
Fiske ST. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, editors. Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1998. pp. 357–411. [ Google Scholar ]
Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P, Xu J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2002; 82 (6):878–902. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fix M, Struyk RJ, editors. Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination in America. Washington, DC: Urban Inst; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
Freeman RB. Changes in the labor market for black Americans, 1948–72. Brookings Pap. Econ. Activity. 1973:67–131. [ Google Scholar ]
Freeman RB, Rodgers WM., III Area economic conditions and the labor market outcomes of young men in the 1990s expansion; NBER Work. Pap. 7073.1999. [ Google Scholar ]
Fryer RG, Jr, Levitt SD. The causes and consequences of distinctively black names. Q. J. Econ. 2004; 119 :767–805. [ Google Scholar ]
Gallup Organ. The Gallup Poll Social Audit on Black/White Relations in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Gallup Organ; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
Gates SW, Perry VG, Zorn P. Automated underwriting in mortgage lending: good news for the underserved? Hous. Policy Debate. 2002; 13 (2):369–391. [ Google Scholar ]
Glennon D, Stengel M. An evaluation of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston’s study of racial discrimination in mortgage lending; Econ. Policy Anal. Work. Pap. 94–2, Off. Comptrol. Curr.; Washington, DC. 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
Goldberg PK. Dealer price discrimination in new car purchases: evidence from the consumer expenditure survey. J. Polit. Econ. 1996; 104 (3):622–654. [ Google Scholar ]
Graddy K. Do fast-food chains price discriminate on the race and income characteristics of an area? J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 1997; 15 (4):391–401. [ Google Scholar ]
Granovetter MS. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol. Rev. 1995; 102 :4–27. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grodsky E, Pager D. The structure of disadvantage: individual and occupational determinants of black-white wage gap. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2001; 66 :542–567. [ Google Scholar ]
Hakken J. Discrimination Against Chicanos in the Dallas Rental Housing Market: An Experimental Extension of the HMPS. Washington, DC: US Dep. HUD; 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
Harris AMG, Henderson GR, Williams JD. Courting customers: assessing consumer racial profiling and other marketplace discrimination. J. Public Policy Mark. 2005; 24 (1):163–171. [ Google Scholar ]
Heckman J. Detecting discrimination. J. Econ. Perspect. 1998; 12 :101–116. [ Google Scholar ]
Heckman J, Payner B. Determining the impact of federal anti-discrimination policy on the economic progress of black Americans. Am. Econ. Rev. 1989; 79 (1):138–176. [ Google Scholar ]
Hirsh CE, Kornrich S. The context of discrimination: workplace conditions, institutional environments, and sex and race discrimination charges. Am. J. Sociol. 2008 In press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Holloway SR. Exploring the neighborhood contingency of race discrimination in mortgage lending in Columbus, Ohio. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1998; 88 (2):252–276. [ Google Scholar ]
Holzer HJ. What Employers Want: Job Prospects for Less-Educated Workers. New York: Russell Sage Found; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
Holzer HJ, Ludwig J. Measuring discrimination in education: Are methodologies from labor and markets useful? Teach. Coll. Rec. 2003; 105 (6):1147–1178. [ Google Scholar ]
Holzer HJ, Neumark D. What does affirmative action do? Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 2000; 53 (2):240–271. [ Google Scholar ]
Horne DK. Evaluating the role of race in mortgage lending. FDIC Bank. Rev. 1994 Spring–Summer;:1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
Ibarra H. Personal networks of women and minorities in management: a conceptual framework. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1993; 18 :56–87. [ Google Scholar ]
Immergluck D, Wiles M. Two Steps Back: The Dual Mortgage Market, Predatory Lending, and the Undoing of Community Development, Nov. Chicago, IL: Woodstock Inst; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
Jackman M. The Velvet Glove: Paternalism and Conflict in Gender, Class, and Race Relations. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
Kalev A, Dobbin F. Enforcement of civil rights law in private workplaces: the effects of compliance reviews and lawsuits over time. Law Soc. Inq. 2006; 31 :855–879. [ Google Scholar ]
Kalev A, Dobbin F, Kelly E. Best practices or best guesses? Diversity management and the remediation of inequality. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2006; 71 :589–917. [ Google Scholar ]
Kanter RM. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books; 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
Kelly E, Dobbin F. How affirmative action became diversity management: employer response to antidiscrimination law, 1961–1996. Am. Behav. Sci. 1998; 41 :960–984. [ Google Scholar ]
Kessler RC, Mickelson KD, Williams DR. The prevalence, distribution, and mental health correlates of perceived discrimination in the United States. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1990; 40 (3):208–230. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kinder DR, Sears DO. Prejudice and politics: symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1981; 40 :414–431. [ Google Scholar ]
Kirschenman J, Neckerman K. We’d love to hire them, but…: the meaning of race for employers. In: Jencks C, Peterson PE, editors. The Urban Underclass. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.; 1991. pp. 203–234. [ Google Scholar ]
Krieger LH. The contents of our categories: a cognitive bias approach to discrimination and equal employment opportunity. Stanford Law Rev. 1995; 47 :1161–1248. [ Google Scholar ]
Ladd HF. Evidence on discrimination in mortgage lending. J. Econ. Perspect. 1998; 12 (2):41–62. [ Google Scholar ]
Lane KA, Banaji MR, Nosek BA, Greenwald AG. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What we know (so far) In: Wittenbrink B, Schwarz NS, editors. Implicit Measures of Attitudes: Procedures and Controversies. New York: Guilford; 2007. pp. 59–102. [ Google Scholar ]
LaPiere RT. Attitudes vs actions. Soc. Forces. 1934; 13 :230–237. [ Google Scholar ]
Leonard JS. Affirmative action as earnings redistribution: the targeting of compliance reviews. J. Labor Econ. 1985; 3 (3):363–384. [ Google Scholar ]
Lieberson S, Fuguitt GV. Negro-white occupational differences in the absence of discrimination. Am. J. Sociol. 1967; 73 (2):188–200. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Liebowitz SJ. A study that deserves no credit. Wall Street J. 1993 Sept. 1:A14. [ Google Scholar ]
List JA. The nature and extent of discrimination in the marketplace: evidence from the field. Q. J. Econ. 2004; 119 :49–89. [ Google Scholar ]
Logan JR, Stults B, Farley R. Segregation of minorities in the metropolis: two decades of change. Demography. 2004; 41 (1):1–22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Loury GC. Politics, race, and poverty research. In: Danziger SH, Haveman RH, editors. Understanding Poverty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press; 2001. pp. 447–453. [ Google Scholar ]
Loury GC. The Anatomy of Racial Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
Lundberg S, Startz R. On the persistence of racial inequality. J. Labor Econ. 1998; 16 (2):292–322. [ Google Scholar ]
Manza J, Uggen C. Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. New York: Oxford Univ. Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
Massey DS. Racial discrimination in housing: a moving target. Soc. Probl. 2005; 52 (2):148–151. [ Google Scholar ]
Massey DS. Social background and academic performance differentials: white and minority students at selective colleges. Am. Law Econ. Rev. 2006; 8 (2):1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
Massey DS. Categorically Unequal: The American Stratification System. New York: Russell Sage Found; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
Massey DS, Denton NA. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
Massey DS, Fischer MJ. The effect of childhood segregation on minority academic performance at selective colleges. Ethn. Racial Stud. 2006; 29 :1–26. [ Google Scholar ]
Massey DS, Lundy G. Use of black English and racial discrimination in urban housing markets. Urban Aff. Rev. 2001; 36 (4):452–469. [ Google Scholar ]
McConahay JB. Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In: Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL, editors. Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism. New York: Academic; 1986. pp. 91–126. [ Google Scholar ]
McKay PF, McDaniel MA. A reexamination of black-white mean differences in work performance: more data, more moderators. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006; 91 :538–554. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2001; 27 :415–444. [ Google Scholar ]
Merton RK. Discrimination and the American creed. In: Rose PI, editor. The Study of Society. New York: Random House; 1970. pp. 449–457. [ Google Scholar ]
Mittman BS. Theoretical and methodological issues in the study of organizational demography and demographic change. Res. Sociol. Organ. 1992; 10 :3–53. [ Google Scholar ]
Moore LV, Roux AVD. Associations of neighborhood characteristics with the location and type of food stores. Am. J. Public Health. 2006; 96 (2):325–331. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Morton SF, Zettelmeyer F, Silva-Risso J. Consumer information and discrimination: Does the internet affect the pricing of new cars to women and minorities? Quant. Mark. Econ. 2003; 1 :65–92. [ Google Scholar ]
Moskos C, Butler JS. All That We Can Be: Black Leadership and Racial Integration the Army Way. New York: Basic Books; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
Moss P, Tilly C. Stories Employers Tell: Race, Skill and Hiring in America. New York: Russell Sage Found; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
Moulton B. A reexamination of the federal-private wage differential in the United States. J. Labor Econ. 1990; 8 :270–293. [ Google Scholar ]
Mouw T. Are black workers missing the connection? The effect of spatial distance and employee referrals on interfirm racial segregation. Demography. 2002; 39 (3):507–528. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Munnell AH, Tootell GMB, Browne LE, McEneaney J. Mortgage lending in Boston: interpreting HMDA data. Am. Econ. Rev. 1996; 86 (1):25–53. [ Google Scholar ]
Myrdal G. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York: Harper; 1944. [ Google Scholar ]
Blank RM, Dabady M, Citro CF, editors. National Research Council. Measuring Racial Discrimination. Panel on Methods for Assessing Discrimination. Washington, DC: Comm. Natl. Stat., Div. Behav. Soc. Sci. Educ., Natl. Acad. Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
Neal DA, Johnson WR. The role of premarket factors in black-white wage differences. J. Polit. Econ. 1996; 104 (5):869–895. [ Google Scholar ]
Nielsen LB, Nelson RL. Scaling the pyramid: a sociolegal model of employment discrimination litigation. In: Nielsen LB, Nelson RL, editors. Handbook of Employment Discrimination Research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2005. pp. 3–34. [ Google Scholar ]
Oaxaca R. Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. Int. Econ. Rev. 1973; 14 (3):693–709. [ Google Scholar ]
Ogbu J. Low school performance as an adaptation: the case of blacks in Stockton, California. In: Gibson MA, Ogbu JU, editors. Minority Status and Schooling. New York: Garland; 1991. pp. 249–285. [ Google Scholar ]
Oliver M, Shapiro T. Black Wealth, White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. New York: Routledge; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
Omi M, Winant H. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1980s. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
Orfield G, Lee C. Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and Educational Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Proj., Harvard Univ; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
Pager D. The use of field experiments for studies of employment discrimination: contributions, critiques, and directions for the future. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 2007a; 609 :104–133. [ Google Scholar ]
Pager D. Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press; 2007b. [ Google Scholar ]
Pager D, Quillian L. Walking the talk: what employers say versus what they do. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2005; 70 :355–380. [ Google Scholar ]
Parcel TL, Mueller CW. Ascription and Labor Markets: Race and Sex Differences in Earnings. New York: Academic; 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
Pattillo M, Weiman D, Western B. Imprisoning America: The Social Effects of Mass Incarceration. New York: Russell Sage Found; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
Petersen T, Saporta I. The opportunity structure for discrimination. Am. J. Sociol. 2004; 109 (4):852–901. [ Google Scholar ]
Petersen T, Saporta I, Seidel ML. Offering a job: meritocracy and social networks. Am. J. Sociol. 2000; 106 :763–816. [ Google Scholar ]
Pettigrew TF. Prejudice. In: Thernstrom S, Orlov A, Handlin O, editors. Dimensions of Ethnicity. Cambridge, MA: Belknap; 1982. pp. 1–29. [ Google Scholar ]
Pettit B, Western B. Mass imprisonment and the life course: race and class inequality in U.S. incarceration. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2004; 69 :151–169. [ Google Scholar ]
Phelps E. The statistical theory of racism and sexism. Am. Econ. Rev. 1972; 62 :659–661. [ Google Scholar ]
Phillips-Patrick FJ, Rossi CV. Statistical evidence of mortgage redlining? A cautionary tale. J. Real Estate Res. 1996; 11 :13–24. [ Google Scholar ]
Purnell T, Idsardi W, Baugh J. Perceptual and phonetic experiments on American English dialect identification. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 1999; 18 (1):10–30. [ Google Scholar ]
Quillian L. New approaches to understanding racial prejudice and discrimination. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006; 32 :299–328. [ Google Scholar ]
Reskin BF. The Realities of Affirmative Action in Employment. Washington, DC: Am. Sociol. Assoc.; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
Reskin BF. The proximate causes of employment discrimination. Contemp. Sociol. 2000; 29 (2):319–328. [ Google Scholar ]
Reskin BF. Including mechanisms in our models of ascriptive inequality: 2002 Presidential Address. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2003; 68 :1–21. [ Google Scholar ]
Reskin BF, McBrier DB, Kmec JA. The determinants and consequences of workplace sex and race composition. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1999; 25 :335–361. [ Google Scholar ]
Riach P, Rich J. Field experiments of discrimination in the market place. Econ. J. 2002; 112 :480–518. [ Google Scholar ]
Ridley S, Bayton JA, Outtz JH. Taxi Service in the District of Columbia: Is It Influenced by Patrons’ Race and Destination? Washington, DC: Washington Lawyers’ Comm. Civil Rights Law. Mimeo; 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
Roscigno VJ. The Face of Discrimination: How Race and Gender Impact Work and Home Lives. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
Roscigno VJ, Karafin D, Tester G. Race and the process of housing discrimination. 2007:153–170. See Roscigno 2007 . [ Google Scholar ]
Ross S, Yinger J. Does discrimination in mortgage lending exist? The Boston Fed study and its critics. 1999:43–83. See Turner & Skidmore 1999 . [ Google Scholar ]
Ross S, Yinger J. The Color of Credit: Mortgage Discrimination, Research Methodology, and Fair-Lending Enforcement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
Roychoudhury C, Goodman AC. An ordered probit model for estimating racial discrimination through Fair Housing audits. J. Hous. Econ. 1992; 2 :358–373. [ Google Scholar ]
Roychoudhury C, Goodman AC. Evidence of racial discrimination in different dimensions of owner-occupied housing search. Real Estate Econ. 1996; 24 :161–178. [ Google Scholar ]
Royster D. Race and the Invisible Hand: How White Networks Exclude Black Men from Blue Collar Jobs. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
Sampson R, Lauritsen J. Racial and ethnic disparities in crime and criminal justice in the United States. Crime Justice. 1997; 21 :311–374. [ Google Scholar ]
Schafer R, Ladd H. Discrimination in Mortgage Lending. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
Schiller B. The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
Schulman KA, Berlin JA, Harless W, Kerner JF, Sistrunk S, et al. The effect of race and sex on physicians’ recommendations for cardiac catheterization. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999; 340 (8):618–626. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schuman H, Steeh C, Bobo L, Krysan M. Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations. Revised ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
Siskin BR, Cupingood LA. Use of statistical models to provide statistical evidence of discrimination in the treatment of mortgage loan applicants: a study of one lending institution. In: Goering J, Wienk R, editors. Mortgage Lending, Racial Discrimination, and Federal Policy. Washington, DC: Urban Inst. Press; 1996. pp. 451–468. [ Google Scholar ]
Skrentny J. Color Lines: Affirmative Action, Immigration, and Civil Rights Options for America. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
Smith RA. Race, gender, and authority in the workplace: theory and research. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2002; 28 :509–542. [ Google Scholar ]
Smith TW. Ethnic Images GSS Top. Rep. No. 19. Chicago: Natl. Opin. Res. Cent., Univ. Chicago; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
Sniderman P, Piazza T, Tetlock P, Kendrick A. The new racism. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 1991; 35 (2):423–447. [ Google Scholar ]
Squires GD. Communities in Black and White: The Intersections of Race, Class, and Uneven Development. Albany: SUNY Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
Squires GD. The new redlining: predatory lending in an age of financial service modernization. Sage Race Relat. Abstr. 2003; 28 (3–4):5–18. [ Google Scholar ]
Steele C. A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Am. Psychol. 1997; 52 (6):613–629. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stuart G. Discriminating Risk: The U. S. Mortgage Lending Industry in the Twentieth Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
Sturm S. Second generation employment discrimination. Columbia Law Rev. 2001; 101 :458–568. [ Google Scholar ]
Sunstein CR. Why don’t markets stop discrimination. Soc. Philos. Policy. 1991; 8 :22–37. [ Google Scholar ]
Szafran R. What kinds of firms hire and promote women and blacks? A review of the literature. Sociol. Q. 1982; 23 :171–190. [ Google Scholar ]
Tilly C. Durable Inequality. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
Tomaskovic-Devey D, Thomas M, Johnson K. Race and the accumulation of human capital across the career: a theoretical model and fixed-effects application. Am. J. Sociol. 2005; 111 :58–89. [ Google Scholar ]
Tonry M. Malign Neglect: Race, Crime, and Punishment in America. New York: Oxford Univ. Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
Turner M, Fix M, Struyk R. Opportunities Denied, Opportunities Diminished: Racial Discrimination in Hiring. Washington, DC: Urban Inst. Press; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
Turner MA, Ross SL. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase 2—Asians and Pacific Islanders. Washington, DC: Dep. Hous. Urban Dev.; 2003a. http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/phase2_final.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
Turner MA, Ross SL. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase 3—Native Americans. Washington, DC: Dep. Hous. Urban Dev.; 2003b. http://www.huduser.org/publications/hsgfin/hds_phase3.html . [ Google Scholar ]
Turner MA, Ross SL. How racial discrimination affects the search for housing. In: Briggs X Souzade., editor. The Geography of Opportunity: Race and Housing Choice in Metropolitan America. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press; 2005. pp. 81–100. [ Google Scholar ]
Turner MA, Ross SL, Gaister GC, Yinger J. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase 1 HDS 2000. Washington, DC: Urban Inst., Dep. Hous. Urban Dev.; 2002. http://www.huduser.org/intercept.asp?loc=/Publications/pdf/Phase1_Report.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
Turner MA, Skidmore F, editors. Mortgage Lending Discrimination: A Review of Existing Evidence. Washington, DC: Urban Inst. Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
Vallas SP. Rediscovering the color line within work organizations: the ‘knitting’ of racial groups revisited. Work Occup. 2003; 30 (4):379–400. [ Google Scholar ]
Waldinger R, Lichter M. How the Other Half Works: Immigration and the Social Organization of Labor. Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
Western B, Pettit B. Black-white wage inequality, employment rates, and incarceration. Am. J. Sociol. 2005; 111 :553–578. [ Google Scholar ]
Wheeler ML. Res. Rep. No. 1130–95-RR. New York: Conf. Board; 1995. Diversity: business rationale and strategies. [ Google Scholar ]
Williams D. Racism and health. In: Whitfield KE, editor. Closing the Gap: Improving the Health of Minority Elders in the New Millennium. Washington, DC: Gerontol. Soc. Am.; 2004. pp. 69–80. [ Google Scholar ]
Williams RA, Nesiba R, McConnell ED. The changing face of inequality in home mortgage lending. Soc. Probl. 2005; 52 (2):181–208. [ Google Scholar ]
Wilson F, Tienda M, Wu L. Race and unemployment: labor market experiences of black and white men, 1968–1988. Work Occup. 1995; 22 (3):245–270. [ Google Scholar ]
Wilson G, Sakura-Lemessy I, West JP. Reaching the top: racial differences in mobility paths to upper-tier occupations. Work Occup. 1999; 26 :165–186. [ Google Scholar ]
Wilson WJ. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
Wilson WJ. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Vintage Books; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
Winterle M. Work Force Diversity: Corporate Challenges, Corporate Responses. New York: Conf. Board; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
Wissoker D, Zimmerman W, Galster G. Testing for Discrimination in Home Insurance. Washington, DC: Urban Inst. Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
Yinger J. Measuring racial discrimination with Fair Housing audits: caught in the act. Am. Econ. Rev. 1986; 76 :881–892. [ Google Scholar ]
Yinger J. Closed Doors, Opportunities Lost: The Continuing Costs of Housing Discrimination. New York: Russell Sage Found; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
Yinger J. Evidence on discrimination in consumer markets. J. Econ. Perspect. 1998; 12 :23–40. [ Google Scholar ]
Zandi M. Boston Fed’s study was deeply flawed. American Banker. 1993 Aug 19;:13. [ Google Scholar ]

Employment Discrimination and Equal Opportunities Essay

Employment discriminatory practice.

Employment discrimination is a burning problem in current society even though people truly believe they have already deprived themselves of racial, gender, age, or other prejudices (Cohn, 2009).

The story of one woman is proof of how gender discrimination in the workplace remains to be a problem. She is a successful lawyer with a Master’s degree and a several-year experience. Because of personal reasons, she had to change her place of living and work. Within a short period, she got an attractive proposition and signed a contract with a small company. She studied each point of the contract. There was no point about gender discrimination; she could not even think that such a factor would matter.

During the first deal, the woman was the only female representative of the company. The director controlled all processes. She was constantly interrupted by the director and substituted by other male representatives.

Her ideas were rejected, though some of them were interesting even according to the other participants’ opinions. The next several meetings were the same. When the woman decided to clear up the situation, she got an answer that her female views were not appropriate for the cases, and she was hired to show that the company got both, female and male, representatives. In a month, she changed the work as she did not want to look for official evidence of employment discrimination and did not find it necessary to continue discussions with such prejudiced male directors.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as a Strategic Resource

Nowadays, when a person needs to find some evidence or explanation of something, he/she addresses the Internet and surf the web. Within a short period, several interesting suggestions are found. A professional in the human service field can go to website and use the information offered by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission team. The structure of the site is not complicated. It is easy to get access to different categories and read the information available.

The content of the site may become a powerful strategic resource due to a variety of facts about employment discrimination. Legal examples and explanations are offered. Laws and regulations that can be used in practice are described. Current news and changes are mentioned on its Home page ( U.S. Equal employment opportunity commission , 2015).

The point is that any employment discrimination case may become a real puzzle due to its complex nature (Landy, 2005). As soon as the puzzle is more or less clarified, it is possible to use the information on the site under discussion and get one or more solutions to the problem. It is easy to find examples of discrimination in the workplace, learn the definitions, and be ready to support the chosen position using the legally approved facts offered. Another helpful point is the possibility to contact the commission and clear up any point directly. As this site is a “.gov” type, all information should be approved by the government and considered to be valid.

Cohn, S. (2009). Race and gender discrimination at work . Oxford: Westview Press.

Landy, F.J. (2005). Employment discrimination litigation: Behavioral, quantitative, and legal perspectives . San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

U.S. Equal employment opportunity commission. (2015). Web.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, July 20). Employment Discrimination and Equal Opportunities. https://ivypanda.com/essays/employment-discrimination-and-equal-opportunities/

"Employment Discrimination and Equal Opportunities." IvyPanda , 20 July 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/employment-discrimination-and-equal-opportunities/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Employment Discrimination and Equal Opportunities'. 20 July.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Employment Discrimination and Equal Opportunities." July 20, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/employment-discrimination-and-equal-opportunities/.

1. IvyPanda . "Employment Discrimination and Equal Opportunities." July 20, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/employment-discrimination-and-equal-opportunities/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Employment Discrimination and Equal Opportunities." July 20, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/employment-discrimination-and-equal-opportunities/.

BigLafz Puzzle Company Organizational Challenges
A Poem Is Not a Puzzle and a Play Is Not a Problem to Be Solved
The Use of Puzzle Game Elements in Detective Fiction Story
Frege’s Solution to the Identity Puzzle - Philosophy
Philosophy: Solving the Puzzle of Identity by Gottlob Frege
The Puzzle of Motivation
Philosophy: The Puzzle of Identity by Gottlob Frege
Gottlob Frege's Solution to the Puzzle About Identity
Frege’s Puzzle and Its Solution
International Labour Organisation in Australia
Workplace Learning: Individual and Agency Roles
Emiratization, Its Measures and Methods
Women in the Workplace: Potential Empowerment' Impact
Emiratization and Unequal Employment Opportunities

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

Essay Database >
Essay Examples >
Essays Topics >
Essay on Workplace

Employment Discrimination Essay Examples

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Workplace , Employment , Employee , Act , Social Issues , Discrimination , Employees , Player

Words: 1250

Published: 03/08/2023

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Introduction

Employment discrimination refers to preventing discrimination at the workplace on the basis of age, sex, nationality, religion, ethnicity, physical disabilities and various other parameters (Player 4). Employment discrimination extends to prejudice in terms of hiring and recruitment, promotions, compensation, job roles, termination, harassment and retaliation. The Constitution of the United States has formulated protective measures to ensure no employer practices any kind of employment discrimination. As such, the federal government has devised a multitude of legislature and acts, which prevent different sorts of employment discrimination. Some of these acts include employment at will, Civil Rights act, sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, defense to claims, age discrimination, disabilities act, equal pay and many others (Player 5).

Employment at-will

According to employment at-will, an employer has the right to fire an employee for any reason, except on illegal grounds falling under the federal and state laws, such as discrimination on the basis of gender, race, religion and color (Player 13). Furthermore, an employee cannot be fired for notifying an illegal activity being carried out in an organization. An employer cannot fire an employee for exercising legal rights, such as medical leave and family leave, leave to join the US military and leave to vote or serve the jury. On the other hand, an employee who is not hired on the basis of employment at-will agreement has the right to quit the job without any prior notice to the employer. According to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employee cannot be discriminated on the grounds of race, religion, color, nationality and gender (Player 16). The law is applicable to organizations employing over 15 employees, including local, state and federal governments. This law prohibits intentional discrimination in various aspects of employment, such as using organizational facilities, training programs, apprenticeship, retirement benefits, job transfer and promotion, leave benefits, compensation and many others (Player 17). Employment discriminatory practices also include harassment, denial of opportunities and bias of decisions on the basis of stereotypes.

Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact Discrimination

Disparate treatment or differential treatment is intentional discrimination, which refers to the treatment of employees in a biased way than others who are in a similar situation (Player 148). On the contrary, disparate impact is unintentional and usually demonstrated by means of statistical disparities. Disparate impact is exceeding harmful and forces racial balance of employment. It not only impacts the business of an organization, but also violates the US constitution’s Equal Protection Clause (Player 149). According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, both disparate treatment and disparate impact are unconstitutional and lead to serious court charges.

Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment refers to sexual discrimination, which violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It includes undesirable sexual advances, sexual favors, verbal and physical conducts of sexual nature, which either implicitly or explicitly impacts the employment of an individual (Player 389). Sexual harassment often interferes with the work environment of an employee by impacting the performance and creating a hostile atmosphere. Federal and state laws prohibit all kinds of sexual harassment as it impacts the employment decisions of employees. Hostile environment created due to sexual harassment is open for legal action and employers with 15 or more employers are liable to punitive and compensatory damages (Player 363).

Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1987

Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1987 is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and prevents any form of discrimination on grounds of pregnancy. Employers are entitled to treat employees who are unable to attend work temporarily due to pregnancy equally with other employees (Player 73). This act also prevents employers from engaging in regular acts of discrimination, such as terminating the employment of women or refusing to recruit women on grounds of pregnancy. Pregnancy Discrimination Act also safeguards women employees from discrimination on grounds of childbirth and other associated conditions (Player 266). Women who require leave to recover from delivery or miscarriage are entitled same rights as women who require time for pregnancy.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

According to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, employers are prohibited from discriminating employees on the basis of their age being equal to or older than 40 years (Player 17). This act prevents the issues arising from an aging workforce. An employer cannot refuse pay benefits and fringe benefits on the sole criterion of age. Furthermore, Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prevents an employer from segregating employees on the basis grounds of their age as it deprives them of employment opportunities. For instance, an employer cannot deny the promotion of an employee and restrain them to a particular level of employment on the basis of age.

Americans with Disabilities Act

According to Americans with Disabilities Act, which was enacted in 1990, employers are prohibited from discriminating employees on grounds of their disability. Disabled employees refer to those who are physically or mentally impaired to the extent that their impairment potentially intervenes with life activities (Player 121). The main purpose of Americans with Disabilities Act is to ensure that employees with disabilities enjoy the same employment benefits and opportunities as other employees. The act is applicable to organizations with more than 15 employees. It establishes significant guidelines to ensure that employees with disabilities are offered reasonable accommodation without causing undue hardship to the employer (Player 122). A disabled employee can file a case against the employer if he is merely rejected on grounds of his disability.

Equal Pay Act of 1963

According to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, employers are prohibited from discriminating the compensation of employees on the basis of their sex. In other words, the law states that men and women should receive equal pay benefits for equal work in similar establishments. All sort of compensation, including salary, bonus, holiday pay and fringe benefits should be allocated equally among men and women belonging to same hierarchal position (Player 404). The act enables the employees to file petition on grounds of discrimination if they receive unequal benefits when compared to their counterparts. Equal Pay Act of 1963 also prohibits employers from striking back against employees who file a case against employment discriminatory practices. However, a significant exception to the act is that it allows pay differentials after evaluating employees on the basis of certain criteria, which include merit, seniority and production levels.

Employment Discrimination Internationally

As a consequence of globalization, increasing number of employees work on global assignments for their home companies. As such, there is likelihood that these employees face discrimination either at home or abroad. As such, an extension to the Civil Rights Act of 1991 offers protection to employees working in foreign countries for US employers (Player 32). According to this act, all the laws mentioned above are applicable to foreign corporations, which are controlled by an employer of the US. Irrespective of the work authorization and citizenship, employees working in the US and its corresponding territories are safeguarded by the act even though they work for a foreign employer (Player 33).

Player, Mack. Federal Law of Employment Discrimination in a Nutshell. West Academic, 2013.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1736

This paper is created by writer with

ID 257810304

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Time management biographies, boice essays, speed skating essays, deering essays, skyrocket essays, chud essays, south west africa essays, coppock essays, delacourt essays, coldwater essays, barcus essays, bourbaki essays, marijuana legalization should the federal government legalize the use of marijuana research paper examples, personal statement on graduate program, link with motivation research paper, reflective writing essay, osmosis and diffusion report, motivation case study research paper examples, creative writing on level of personal mastery identification, example of business plan on financial plan for dalnim inc, critique of the post operative management of a patient who has undergone sleeve essay, example of lasers in micro manufacturing research paper, gender construct dynamics in different cultures and resistance to change essay sample, essay on women in the film battle of algiers, chiropractic research paper examples, essay on administrative adjudications important consequences, read paper details essay example, policy a top quality essay for your inspiration, proper essay example about principles of public administration, expertly crafted essay on fashion and food, draw topic writing ideas from this essay on expressions of strategy, expertly crafted essay on hr department development and management, example of essay on nursing shortage in the united states, health promotion and disease prevention a sample essay for inspiration mimicking, perfect model essay on retaining talent, free essay about hashtags should only be used on social media sites, good essay on how cultural differences impact communication in business relationships, free qualitative research design research paper sample, free essay about field experience a school psychologist interview, supply chain design essay sample, defining the method or instrument used in the study such as questionnaires or interviews to have a concrete information question answer sample, write by example of this araby vs death in the woods essay, proper essay example about aviation.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Watch CBS News

Federal racial discrimination lawsuit against Tesla allowed to proceed

By Joe Dworetzky

Updated on: April 2, 2024 / 10:16 AM PDT / CBS/Bay City News Service

While a legal strategy built around the adage "the best defense is a good offense" sometimes works, this time it failed Tesla, Inc.

On Friday, a federal judge gave the green light for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to proceed with its suit against Tesla for "severe or pervasive racial harassment" of workers at its Fremont manufacturing plant. The suit joins two lawsuits currently pending in Alameda County Superior Court that also allege there has been a racially hostile work environment at the factory.

Tesla moved to suspend or dismiss the EEOC's case on grounds that it duplicated the pending state court cases and that the complaint did not allege facts sufficient to conclude that any racial misconduct at the plant was so severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment.

Tesla's moving papers staked out an aggressive position. Pushing back against the EEOC's claims that racial harassment "was frequent, ongoing, inappropriate, unwelcome and occurred across all shifts, departments, and positions," Tesla claimed that "Black workers can and do thrive at Tesla."

In Tesla's opinion, the problem was that "certain Northern California attorneys have targeted Tesla and helped create a deliberately false narrative." In Tesla's narrative, any racial misconduct at the plant only amounted to isolated incidents and in no way, shape, or form was pervasive racial discrimination at the majority-minority facility.

But going well beyond its challenge to the merits of the EEOC's claim, Tesla put the EEOC's conduct directly in its crosshairs. According to Tesla, the EEOC and the California Civil Rights Department, the state counterpart to the EEOC, have been -- and are -- engaged in a bureaucratic turf war to garner "attention-grabbing headlines."

The CRD is the moving party in one of the Alameda County cases against Tesla and that case alleges many of the same things that the EEOC uses in its complaint.

The EEOC and CRD have overlapping missions and jurisdiction, and Tesla says that the agencies have had a long history of cooperating in their investigations and litigation to avoid wasteful duplication. However, Tesla says that the historic cooperation has fallen apart, "with each agency increasingly eager to file headline-grabbing complaints and report multimillion-dollar settlements."

Tesla cites an unrelated case involving alleged gender discrimination at the gaming company, Activision Blizzard, Inc., in which the EEOC sued Activision and in 2022 reached an $18 million settlement with the company, subject only to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

In an unusual move, the CRD tried to intervene in the Activision case - that is, CRD asked permission to become a party in the pending lawsuit - so that it could object to the EEOC's proposed settlement with Activision. The federal judge who heard the matter rejected the CRD's request to intervene and, according to Tesla, called the CRD's maneuver "unseemly."

In Tesla's narrative, the agencies learned nothing from Activision and in fact, escalated their competition for headlines. That meant "it was now Tesla's turn to be caught in the cross-hairs of this inter-agency battle..."

According to Tesla, after being outflanked in the Activision case, CRD was "afraid that the EEOC would steal the headlines," and so it conducted a "sham" mediation with Tesla and immediately filed suit against the electric car manufacturer. The EEOC, allegedly uninterested in prior complaints against Tesla, brought its suit even though it knew its case was duplicative of the CRD case.

The finger-pointing did not stop there.

Tesla accused EEOC of rushing to complete its investigation and file suit even without visiting the Fremont plant or requesting to interview Tesla's management. Tesla alleges that if EEOC had properly investigated it would have learned that despite the lurid allegations, the "reality on the ground... bore no resemblance" to CRD's or EEOC's claims.

Tesla also asserted that EEOC had failed its statutorily required responsibility to fully explore and, if possible, reach a resolution without a lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Corley made short work of Tesla's arguments.

She did not bother to discuss the drama in the Activision case, but found that the EEOC had done enough to satisfy any obligation to explore a consensual resolution. She then found that while the EEOC's case overlapped with the Alameda County cases, the cases were not the same and resolution of the other cases would not resolve the EEOC's case.

She also noted that the EEOC's complaint had done more than enough to allege that the racial harassment at the Fremont plant was severe.

She said that among the EEOC's allegations were that non-Black managers and employees repeatedly used the N-word to address Black employees. She quoted another federal judge who wrote, "Perhaps no single act can more quickly alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment than the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as [the N-word] by a supervisor in the presence of his subordinates."

She allowed EEOC's case to move forward.

The Fremont plant was previously a General Motors facility. Tesla purchased it in 2010 and retooled it to produce electric vehicles. According to the CRD complaint, the facility has 5.3 million square feet of space on 370 acres and employs more than 15,000 workers.

In a release it made when the CRD case was filed, Tesla emphasized that it is the only California car manufacturer and "provides the best-paying jobs in the automotive industry to over 30,000 Californians."

The release went on to say that Tesla is a world leader in innovation, sustainability and clean energy, and concluded that "attacking a company like Tesla that has done so much good for California should not be the overriding aim of a state agency with prosecutorial authority."

Tesla moved its headquarters from Palo Alto to Austin, Texas in 2021, though its website now shows Palo Alto as its "Engineering Headquarters."

Tesla is one of the world's most valuable companies, with a market capitalization of more than $500 billion.

Featured Local Savings

Nurses at 3 Santa Clara County hospitals on strike as negotiations continue

Microsoft Teams being split from Office after antitrust scrutiny

San Francisco seeing an upswing in tourism after hosting large events

Residents, small business owners rally in Oakland for improved safety

An employment lawyer explains the 3 things you should do the moment you're put on a PIP

Craig Levey is an employment law attorney of over 12 years.
He says that PIPs are often used by companies to "paper the file" once they've already decided to fire the employee.
If put on a PIP, you should read it carefully, consider if it's reasonable, and decide how to respond.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Craig Levey, an employment law attorney and partner at Bennett & Belfort, P.C., a law firm based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

In my experience as an employment law attorney of 12 years, performance-improvement plans, or PIPs, result in termination in most cases. While there are circumstances where an employee survives the PIP and keeps working there, those situations are rare.

Many companies use PIPs to paper the file; they document the areas in which this employee is deficient, and then once the PIP is over — or sometimes even sooner — they terminate the employee and say, "As we outlined in the PIP, things weren't going well in certain areas. We don't feel like you've improved, so we're going to part ways with you."

PIPs are a tool for companies to prevent litigation, too, because then they can argue that they didn't terminate the employee because of discrimination, retaliation, or sexual harassment but rather because of performance.

When an employee receives a PIP , there are three steps that I suggest that they follow.

1. Read the PIP very carefully

Many people are so shocked that they receive a PIP that they don't actually take the time to take a deep breath, sit down, and read it.

You want to fully understand the language that's in the PIP and what the expectations are. If you need clarification because there's not enough information, you should go back and ask your company your questions and see if they offer support, such as one-on-one meetings with your supervisor.

2. Decide if the PIP is reasonable

Once you've read the PIP, ask yourself, is this PIP designed for me to fail, or is it reasonable?

A good PIP should be very clear about the areas where the employee is supposedly deficient. In a reasonable timeframe, it should spell out how that employee will get better and offer support such as regular meetings with their supervisor.

A bad PIP is very short and doesn't articulate the areas in which the employee needs to get better, so the employee is left confused and doesn't know what is being asked of them. There either isn't a timeframe given, or the timeframe is unreasonable, and no support is offered to help the employee improve.

After receiving a bad PIP, the employee walks away confused or feeling unreasonable. Typically, when an employee receives a bad PIP, it means the company doesn't want them to improve. It's just a tool to pave the way for the termination.

3. Decide whether to respond

If, after reading your PIP, you feel it's actually pretty reasonable and you can satisfy the requirements in the time allotted, you don't need to respond. Just move on and focus on working on what's needed and satisfying the requirements laid out.

But sometimes, there are unfair PIPs with requirements that even the best employee in the world could never satisfy. If the PIP is unrealistic or unreasonable, then you need to respond.

If you decide to respond, email your supervisor or HR and spell out why it is unreasonable. Perhaps the timeframe is not long enough, or the expectations are unattainable, or the company isn't offering any support.

By spelling out the ways the PIP is unreasonable, it can protect your interests a bit in the event that you are later terminated.

Is the PIP retaliatory?

You should also think about whether the PIP is retaliatory. A lot of companies will issue a PIP in retaliation for the employee complaining about something illegal going on in the workplace or taking leave for disabilities or pregnancy, which is protected under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) .

Leave is there for a reason. If you have a disability, if you have mental health issues, or if you're pregnant, then you need to use your leave options because that's precisely what they're there for.

Unfortunately, I see all the time that companies perceive employees who take leave to be a burden. Companies don't like when they have somebody out of work and they have to satisfy those duties, either by hiring somebody to fill in or asking somebody else to take on those duties.

This happens far too often across the US. When you look at other countries around the world — how they value leave and how much time off they give people — there's more emphasis on quality of life rather than the American way, which is focused on the "grind." American companies put so much more emphasis on the bottom line and making money and less on employee well-being.

If you believe your PIP is due to your company retaliating against you, then you can respond in writing; articulate what you believe the PIP is in retaliation for, and spell out the illegal conduct. Keep a copy of that email so that in the event that you do get terminated in the future, you're preserving the record for purposes of litigation.

When I'm speaking with clients, I look at the full picture because, in many cases, I see a situation where an employee was a strong performer for many years and received good performance evaluations, but then they complained about something illegal or took protected medical leave and all of a sudden they received the PIP.

To me, that doesn't add up. You don't just suddenly become a bad performer when you have a documented history of strong performance reviews.

It's better for companies to work with employees rather than use PIPs

My philosophy is that it's better for supervisors to sit down, talk to the employee, and sort of nip issues in the bud as soon as they recognize potential areas of deficiencies and deal with them right away rather than letting things fester.

Most companies have already decided to terminate the employee by the time they get to a PIP. If I were running a business, I wouldn't issue a PIP. I would just sit down with the employee once or twice and genuinely explain how I wanted them to get better. You can still have a paper trail by sending a follow-up email outlining what was discussed and areas for improvement.

The mindset around PIPs should change. Companies should want their employees to improve, and they should deal with problems early on rather than just issuing PIPs at the end of the employment and then terminating.

If companies are issuing PIPs , they should be implemented or issued only once the supervisors have already spoken to the employees about these issues. PIPs should be genuine, clear, and articulate what they want the employee to improve upon. They should give employees the opportunity to improve. I don't think companies should use PIPs for the sake of trying to protect themselves from potential future issues.

If you've been put on a PIP or put someone on a PIP and would like to share your story, email Jane Zhang at [email protected] .

If you enjoyed this story, be sure to follow Business Insider on Microsoft Start.

An employment lawyer explains the 3 things you should do the moment you're put on a PIP

Adding health to the reparations conversation in Boston

Martha Bebinger

A stethoscope on top of a stack of money. (Doug4537/Getty Images)

It’s usually economists, historians, advocates or politicians who make the case for reparations to address centuries of harm for people of color that started with slavery. One form reparations can take is direct payments that could close the wealth gap between Black and white Americans. That gap, which includes income and assets like a home, is vast and growing .

But some health and public health experts are weighing in as well. They’re making the case for reparations as a tool to reduce deep disparities in health for people of color. Multiple studies have linked racism to poorer health and shorter life expectancy for Black Americans compared to whites. Yet, broader reparations efforts have struggled to find political support and funding.

Dr. Mary Bassett, director of the FXB Center for Health and Human Rights at Harvard, says that needs to change.

“Reparations can be seen as a health intervention, not only a moral repair, but a way of addressing these long-standing health inequities,” Bassett told an audience at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health last week. “Money has to be part of it, let me be clear about that.”

Bassett co-authored a study that suggested closing the wealth gap could narrow the difference in life expectancy between older Black and white adults.

But the cost of providing meaningful compensation to descendants for the harms due to slavery is sobering. A separate study estimated the national price tag for lost wages alone, plus interest, could top $14 trillion .

Critics — and even some supporters of reparations — call that figure unrealistic for any reparations program to pay out today. But the study's authors say it’s the minimum needed because $14 trillion only accounts for past harms. It doesn’t include the ongoing financial impact of discrimination in housing, employment, the legal system and on health.

There’s little research about whether direct payments to individuals would reduce high rates of infant mortality , heart disease and stroke suffered by Black Americans. That’s why some supporters of “health reparations” are calling for a definition that goes beyond cash payments.

Dr. Avik Chatterjee says it should include hospitals and health care professionals who have not offered Black patients the same care white patients receive. He says health systems can make amends and prevent further damage by ending racist practices, opening clinics in underserved areas or taking other steps guided by community input.

“Health reparations doesn’t necessarily mean cash to specific people,” said Chatterjee, an associate professor at Boston University School of Medicine. “It may mean changing the way we allow people to access health care. That will improve the health disparities we see now.”

Some prominent health institutions, including Mass General Brigham , Boston Medical Center and Cambridge Health Alliance , say they are already working to address systemic racism. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health launched a health equity office this year to address racism as a serious public health threat. A group of health care leaders of color is making the economic case for change using an estimate that shows health disparities cost Massachusetts nearly $6 billion a year .

Despite these efforts, many initiatives aimed at reducing health inequities are still struggling for funds. Boston City Councilor Julia Mejia told the audience at Harvard she has been advocating for a proposed Neighborhood Birth Center in Boston. Research shows similar birthing centers may help improve patient experiences and reduce the use of medical interventions during delivery. Mejia said she hopes the center can help improve maternal mortality rates. Black women are nearly twice as likely to die during or shortly after birth than white women in Massachusetts, according to state data.

Mejia helped launch a reparations task force in Boston that is expected to issue recommendations next year . A separate grassroots group in Boston is calling for $15 billion in reparations , but did not specify health care as an area of focus. Mejia argued health is fundamental to repairing the harm caused by centuries of discrimination.

“Health is wealth,” Mejia said. “People are not going to do well unless they are well.”

Boston reparations task force will not complete work by end-of-year target
Wu appoints task force to consider reparations in Boston
Health leaders call for action to end disparities that cost Mass. an estimated $5.9 billion per year
ESSAY: Boston hospitals can make miracles. Yet our Black maternal health crisis persists

Martha Bebinger Reporter Martha Bebinger covers health care and other general assignments for WBUR.

St Petersburg: the city of three revolutions

25 October 2017 By Owen Hatherley Essays

Instigated by an unequal and divided populace, St Petersburg was pivotal in a succession of momentous revolutionary upheavals

The city variously known through history as St Petersburg, Petrograd or Leningrad used to be called ‘the Cradle of Three Revolutions’. It was central to a succession of massive upheavals: the eventually failed Empire-wide uprising of 1905, the February Revolution of 1917 that overthrew the Tsar, and the October Revolution of the same year that began an experiment in total social transformation. Over recent decades, it has become something of a forgotten city, though it is the fourth largest metropolis in Europe, after Moscow, Istanbul and London. Its 18th-century canal-side streets look to the untrained eye like a tougher Copenhagen, yet rather than being lined by bicycles, they’re choked with traffic. A Petersburg ‘clan’ dominates Russian politics, but the city seems to have benefited little in terms of investment. Its piercing beauty coexists with a sharp carelessness.

Supporters of the provisional government inside the Winter Palace in November 1917. Photograph courtesy of World History Archive / Alamy

Aside from its revolutions, Petersburg is best known for a beauty that predates the uprisings. The place that erupted three times in strikes, factory occupations and insurrections was not defined by perfectly calculated Enlightenment classicism, but by 19th-century suburbs of tall, crowded tenements, wooden slums, red brick mills and heavy metal engineering works. Petersburg’s industry was monolithic, defined by a few enormous complexes employing thousands of people, staffed by workers whose grandparents were serfs. This made it an ideal city of what Bolshevik theorists called ‘uneven and combined development’. Yet Petersburg is extremely ‘even’ in its planned structure. A centre like an ideal Renaissance town plan come to life is surrounded successively by equally homogeneous quarters of the 19th century, the avant-garde 1920s, the Stalinist 1930s to ’50s, the prefabricated 1960s to ’80s. It is these last decades where new development is concentrated, because of the most influential Soviet legacy – the historical preservation of the entire city centre, which is sometimes circumvented, but never quite defeated, by property developers and their friends in government. Instead, developers cram ultra-high-density complexes of Postmodernist ‘luxury’ flats – quickly built by brutally treated Central Asian migrant workers – into tight plots in former industrial districts. It is an unpleasant side effect of conservation that the city government seems prepared to accept.

Rexfeatures 9051286a

Winter Palace, Palace Square. The events of 1917 are largely ignored by the Kremlin in this centenary year. Photograph by AP Photo/Dmitri Lovetsky, courtesy of Rex/Shutterstock

There are many traces of the revolution in the centre if you know where to find them. The cruiser Aurora , a volley from which was the signal for insurrection in October 1917, still stands on the river Neva, and was recently restored, although it currently downplays its revolutionary use. Plaques are sometimes to be found on the buildings occupied by the various revolutionary governments, such as the Tauride Palace or the Smolny Institute. There are monuments, like the exceptionally moving Field of Mars, a burial ground for victims of the February Revolution, later completed with poetic inscriptions by the Bolshevik Commissar of Enlightenment, Anatoly Lunacharsky. There are the streets and squares where protest and insurrection happened. Nevsky Prospect, where demonstrators were shot in the suppression of the violent protests of July 1917. The unforgettable dream-space of Palace Square, where the Winter Palace was stormed, and where the storming would be re-enacted by avant-garde theatre groups and Constructivist film directors.

The cruiser Aurora signalled insurrection in October 1917. Photograph courtesy of Interfoto / Alamy

The most interesting and enduring legacy is more invisible – the Kommunalka . This hugely unequal and divided city’s apartments were audited and split up during the bloody Civil War that followed the Bolshevik seizure of power, with one result being extreme subdivision – several families in one huge, high-ceilinged imperial flat. Few outside Russia realise that many of the opulent apartment blocks in the centre are actually still Kommunalki, with a tangle of doorbell switches to each door. This has two results today. The neglect of these lush tenements is obvious, but inner-city districts have mostly not been fully gentrified, as the complexity of who owns what often deters investors. Defying conservation laws, some developers find it easier to just knock down and build replicas instead, dispersing the residents and owners in one fell swoop rather than negotiating with them. It’s hardly utopian, but the persistence of the Kommunalka is nonetheless a definite revolutionary legacy in 2017.

Profusion of doorbells on the main door of a Kommunalka . Photograph by Sergey Kozmin Photography

The earliest legacy in terms of new space is Narvskaya Zastava, ‘the Narva district’, which stretches roughly from the Narva Gate, a flamboyant victory arch for the Napoleonic Wars, to the Putilov engineering works, the largest and most important factory in 1917, whose support was crucial for the Bolshevik insurrection of October. This was one of the first districts to have been built in the USSR – given that the Putilov workers began to rebel against Bolshevik statism as early as 1920, satisfying their demands for a better quality of life was important for the revolutionary regime’s legitimacy. The earliest part, from 1926, is Tractor Street, designed by Aleksandr Gegello, Aleksandr Nikolsky and Grigory Simonov, a very attractive Neoclassical estate that subtly distorts the limpid classicism that defines St Petersburg, with half-arches and unexpected vistas. On the oversized Square of Strikes, a collection of public buildings face each other. Some – like Noi Trotsky’s early 1930s Town Hall, and ASNOVA architects’ dramatic Factory Kitchen – are ambitiously Constructivist, with asymmetrical towers and ribbon windows, while others, such as the 10th Anniversary School and the Gorky Palace of Culture (both 1927), are in a Perret-like Rationalist style. Few are in a good state of repair, and the townscape is marred by the hideous mirrorglass-Classical 1812 Shopping Centre, but a few years ago, a Walter Benjamin-like tour of the district formed the basis of a project by the contemporary avant-garde group Chto Delat (What is To Be Done?), which was published as an issue of their intriguing newspaper. Square of Strikes was also the setting for their film Angry Sandwich People , where the text of a Brecht poem about the fading of revolutionary hope is carried on sandwich boards by a group of Petersburgers.

A room shared by a family of three and a dog in a Kommunalka, or communal apartment. Photograph by Sergey Kozmin Photography

If this is the only entire district in the city where you can still just about feel the pulse of post-revolutionary ambition, there are Constructivist factory kitchens and workers’ clubs dotted around the inner suburbs. In Vasilevsky Island, next to surviving shipyards and docks, there is a factory with an abstracted tower by Iakov Chernikhov, best known for his 1933 book Architectural Fantasies; a couple of miles north is Erich Mendelsohn’s Red Banner Textile Factory, an Expressionist battleship marooned among disused 19th-century mills and warehouses. These two buildings are among the monuments of an era when the USSR was, briefly, the centre of European Modernism; but most of the buildings that directly invoke the revolution in imagery and rhetoric are from the Stalinist years. The city’s palatial Metro is studded with bronze, steel, porphyry and glass monuments to unnamed insurgents and their named leaders. It works almost as a narrative, going from Lenin speaking to workers on a giant relief in the entrance to Narvskaya, to the central Uprising Square, where state power is seized in ceramic medallions. A statue of Lenin commands the classic totalitarian urbanism of the Moskovsky (Moscow) District, with its huge squares and castellated apartment buildings for the Soviet elite.

With exceptions, such as Catriona Kelly’s admirable Shadows of the Past, St Petersburg after the end of the Second World War – during which the city was blockaded and starved nearly to death – is ignored in histories. It was only really between the ’60s and ’80s that the housing problem inherited in 1917 was seriously solved, with the mass building of prefabricated housing – most of the results are nondescript, save the memorable Brutalist enfilades that line the canals in the north of Vasilievsky Island. Perestroika Leningrad saw a late artistic flowering as a city of the post-punk avant-garde, via musicians such as Sergey Kuryokhin and Viktor Tsoi. It is also the home of Vladimir Putin, and his coterie of former secret servicemen. Its city government has been proudly reactionary – the recent law against ‘homosexual propaganda’ was first tested out in St Petersburg. The vote to rename the city in 1991 was narrow, and many institutions just had their names changed rather than being abolished. One such was the Museum of the Revolution, which became the Museum of Political History.

Rexfeatures 8519908a

Kirovsky, former Putilovsky factory, site of workers’ strike, taken in 1917. Photograph by AP Photo/Dmitri Lovetsky, courtesy of Rex / Shutterstock

This was once Ksheshinskaya’s Palace, built for a ballerina, to the designs of Aleksandr Von Gogen in 1904. The Palace was a sprawling home for one fortunate person, a short walk from the overcrowded tenements of the proletarian Vyborg district. In 1917, the Bolsheviks requisitioned it as their HQ; in the ’50s, it became a museum. When I visited in 2010, you still had to wear plastic slippers and photos were strictly forbidden. The collection of revolutionary memorabilia had, at some point in the ’90s, been supplied with new captions telling you how awful the Bolsheviks really were. Now, these rooms coexist with a more nuanced but still schizophrenic depiction of revolutionary events, after a recent expansion and restoration. One room will tell you about Ksheshinskaya, another replicates the Bolshevik Central Committee’s offices, another gives a potted history of Soviet housing in the city. Most pertinent of all is a permanent exhibition on the Duma, the rigged parliament that Tsar Nicholas II conceded after the first of the ‘three revolutions’ in 1905. It is aptly placed alongside the equally powerless current Russian parliament of the same name. You might miss the most important thing – the expropriation of the rich, their luxuries transformed into a base for plotting out the parameters of a new and better kind of society. The streets of Petersburg have abundant evidence of how that ended up; but they also show why people believed it possible.

October 2017

Since 1896, The Architectural Review has scoured the globe for architecture that challenges and inspires. Buildings old and new are chosen as prisms through which arguments and broader narratives are constructed. In their fearless storytelling, independent critical voices explore the forces that shape the homes, cities and places we inhabit.

Join the conversation online

IMAGES

Employment Discrimination Essay Sample
Equal Opportunity Employment Research Paper Thesis Essay Example
Racial Discrimination Research Paper Free Essay Example
Discrimination Essay
Employment Discrimination Essay Sample
34: Employment Discrimination

VIDEO

Zero Discrimination Day
GENDER DISCRIMINATION Essay in English// Beautiful handwriting
employment movie essay equipment currency concept passage
Woman employment, essay on women empowerment @Englishreadingpractice
Employment Discrimination (Intro)
Employment Discrimination and Harassment

COMMENTS

Discrimination in the Workplace: [Essay Example], 653 words
Workplace discrimination refers to unfair treatment of employees based on characteristics such as race, gender, age, disability, and sexual orientation. This type of discrimination can manifest in hiring practices, promotions, pay disparities, and even termination of employment. Discrimination in the workplace not only affects the individuals ...
Discrimination in the workplace Free Essay Example
Views. 9895. Discrimination in the workplace is a common behavior that occurs in all occupations and industries. It can occur whether you work for a large or small organization, you're a boss, or just starting out. In an ideal world people would be equal in rights, opportunities, and responsibilities, despite their race or gender.
Discrimination at the workplace
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.
Discrimination Workplace Essay
Discrimination is broadly defined to 'distinguish unfavourably', isolate; and is context based (Pagura, 2012). Abrahams (1991) described the workplace as an 'inhospitable place' where gender disparity and wage gaps persist (Stamarski & Son Hing, 2015). Among other states and countries, the Australian government actively implements and ...
Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, and the Impact of Workplace Power
Abstract. Research on workplace discrimination has tended to focus on a singular axis of inequality or a discrete type of closure, with much less attention to how positional and relational power within the employment context can bolster or mitigate vulnerability. In this article, the author draws on nearly 6,000 full-time workers from five ...
103 Workplace Discrimination Essay Topic Ideas & Examples
Racial Discrimination at the Workplace. The main change that is discussed in this essay is the introduction of legislation that will see the creation of a special authority that is aimed at guaranteeing the freedom of all workers at the […] Discrimination in the Workplace: Denial of Promotion.
Employment Discrimination Essay example
Employment Discrimination Essay example. Discrimination is a very hard barrier to break. To discriminate means to "distinguish between one another; to make a difference in treatment or favor on the basis other then individual merit." Everyone at some point in their life experiences some form of discrimination that might be on the basis of their ...
Employment Discrimination Essay
Essay on Employment Discrimination. Employment Discrimination laws seek to prevent discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, and age by employers. There is also a growing body of law preventing or occasionally justifying employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Employment Discrimination and the Domino Effect
Employment discrimination is a multidimensional problem. In many instances, some combination of employer bias, the organization of work, and employees' responses to these conditions, leads to worker inequality. Title VII does not sufficiently account for these dynamics in two significant respects.
Discrimination in Employment: Race and Disability Equality
Unfortunately, employment discrimination in the workplace is rising at an alarming rate. In the article, Why Are Employment Discrimination Lawsuits Rising So Rapidly, the statistics show that in 2016, the top three discriminatory lawsuits were due to retaliation (45.9%), race (35.3%), and disability (30.7%) (Lucas, 2018).
Essay on Employment Discrimination
The Employment Discrimination Act is when everyone has the right to be treated fairly at work and to be free of discrimination on grounds of age, race, gender reassignment, disability, sexual orientation and religion beliefs. The Employment Discrimination Act refers to federal and state laws that prohibit employers from treating workers ...
The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment
The charge for this article was a focus on racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit markets, and consumer interactions, but many of the arguments reviewed here may also extend to other domains (e.g., education, health care, the criminal justice system) and to other types of discrimination (e.g., gender, age, sexual orientation).
Employment Discrimination and Equal Opportunities Essay
Employment Discriminatory Practice. Employment discrimination is a burning problem in current society even though people truly believe they have already deprived themselves of racial, gender, age, or other prejudices (Cohn, 2009). We will write a custom essay on your topic. 809 writers online.
What is Employment Discrimination?
The EEOC is responsible for protecting you from one type of discrimination - employment discrimination because of your race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, disability, age (age 40 or older), or genetic information. Other laws may protect you from other types of ...
Workplace Discrimination And Harassment
Discrimination is a major ethical issue and a legal one as it violates several federal and employment laws and regulations (England, 2018). Discrimination happens when an individual or group gets subjected to biased treatment based on various factors such as nationality, race, age, color, religion, sex, disability, sexual orientation, veteran ...
Essay About Employment Discrimination
Employment discrimination refers to preventing discrimination at the workplace on the basis of age, sex, nationality, religion, ethnicity, physical disabilities and various other parameters (Player 4). Employment discrimination extends to prejudice in terms of hiring and recruitment, promotions, compensation, job roles, termination, harassment ...
Federal racial discrimination lawsuit against Tesla allowed to proceed
A federal judge gave the green light for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to proceed with its suit against Tesla for "severe or pervasive racial harassment" of workers at its ...
Essay on Employment Discrimination
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. The Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
An employment lawyer explains the 3 things you should do the ...
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Craig Levey, an employment law attorney and partner at Bennett & Belfort, P.C., a law firm based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The following ...
World Health Day 2024
World Health Day 2024 is 'My health, my right'. This year's theme was chosen to champion the right of everyone, everywhere to have access to quality health services, education, and information, as well as safe drinking water, clean air, good nutrition, quality housing, decent working and environmental conditions, and freedom from discrimination.
Adding health to the reparations conversation in Boston
It doesn't include the ongoing financial impact of discrimination in housing, employment, the legal system and on health. ... ESSAY: Boston hospitals can make miracles. Yet our Black maternal ...
Attorney General James and Comptroller Lander Secure Nearly $230,000
In July 2022, Attorney General James delivered $500,000 to current and former employees of a Manhattan bar for enduring sexual harassment, discrimination, and wage theft. In May 2022, Attorney General James recovered more than $2.9 million for hundreds of New York City Marriott workers who were denied full severance pay.
St Petersburg: the city of three revolutions
The city variously known through history as St Petersburg, Petrograd or Leningrad used to be called 'the Cradle of Three Revolutions'. It was central to a succession of massive upheavals: the eventually failed Empire-wide uprising of 1905, the February Revolution of 1917 that overthrew the Tsar, and the October Revolution of the same year that began an experiment in total social ...
City of St. Petersburg
Kenneth T. Welch was sworn in as the 54th mayor of St. Petersburg, Florida on January 6, 2022. Mayor's Office. City Council. Pillars for Progress.
Now Hiring: City Administrator for the City of St. Petersburg
The City Administrator represents the City and the City's interests at meetings and presentations with City Council, government leaders, the public, civic and business leaders, and other related groups. They are also involved in analyzing, reviewing, and making recommendations on the City's finances, spending, and budget.
Employment
See Open Jobs. STEP 2 - Create an Account. Create an iRecruitment account and gather application materials. Detailed instructions and tips can be found the following document. Online Application Instructions. STEP 3 - Apply. Apply for the job (s) you're interested in and review our selection process. Selection Process.