EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AT THE WORKPLACE
Introduction
Workplace discrimination became a legal issue in the year 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Previously, the topic was mainly a psychological issue. However, there remains a secure link between the law and psychology regarding workplace discrimination. Although discrimination is a complex issue, psychologists can help lawmakers understand the psychological problems in employment discrimination, such as the validity and reliability of the measures instituted to prevent it (Muchinsky & Culbertson, 2016). Organizational and industrial psychologists have a compelling interest in adverse impact discrimination; that is, employment practices that deny some groups employment opportunities and not others. With such methods, employees cannot enjoy their right to inclusion in employment, and companies cannot derive productivity from their workforces. Therefore, employment discrimination is a detriment to organizational and employee wellbeing. Addressing this challenge requires an adequate understanding of employment discrimination and ways in which companies and individuals can approach it. This paper provides the legal basis for charging employment discrimination and the psychological contribution to the process of addressing it.
The Legal Background for Charging Employment Discrimination
The US has seven protected groups regarding employment discrimination: sex, national origin, age, race, color, disability, and religion. The inclusion of these groups has followed numerous legislations since the year 1964, and it has involved various restrictions through Title VII. One of the limits is the refusal or failure to hire or discharge due to one’s status in sex, religion, color, and other classes. Another critical restriction is the separation/classification of applicants meant to deny them employment opportunities due to their statuses in the protected groups. The law also prevents the indication of preferences in employment adverts or training opportunities (Muchinsky & Culbertson, 2016). The US law system provides two significant theories under which to charge employment discrimination cases. Those are the adverse impact and the disparate treatment categories. Under the former, the law restricts discrimination on groups such as women, persons with a disability, etc. The latter category deals with discrimination that is hard to notice superficially, such as the administration of physical tests that act differently on women and men (Muchinsky & Culbertson, 2016).
The judicial system suffers several flaws, which make it possible for employers to avoid employment discrimination. The 80% rule, for example, is a prominent technique in which employers ensure that they do not deny some groups an opportunity over others. This method acknowledges the existence of adverse impact (of discrimination) “if the selection ratio of any group goes below 80 percent of that of another group” (Muchinsky & Culbertson, 2016). Even with these legislations, the US still faces a high level of employment discrimination. In the year 2013, for example, the country witnessed 32,727 race-related cases of employment discrimination. Eighty percent of all employment discrimination cases were group-based; that is, they involved any of the seven protected groups (Muchinsky & Culbertson, 2016). These rates signify the lack of achievement of the goals of the laws on employment discrimination. Several ideas explain the persistence of employment discrimination. Organizations, for instance, may avoid litigation if they prove that the selection test acts as a valid predictor of job performance. In other words, the employer may claim that he/she used the test to determine if the applicant fits the job description. An employer may alternatively use a test that does not violate the 80% rule but which limits their ability to recruit the most qualified applicant. These flaws partly explain why discrimination persists in hiring. The high rates inform psychologists’ interest in the issue.
Mental Disorders of Employment Discrimination
As mentioned above, selection bias may reduce not only organizational productivity but also psychological suffering among victims. According to Bhui et al. (2005), discrimination based on physical characteristics and skin color is a risk factor for mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety. Such discrimination takes diverse forms, and they include physical attacks, insults, and job denial. These practices are prevalent in multi-ethnic workforces such as the US and the UK, with consequences such as absenteeism, lack of self-esteem, and a high rate of primary care consultation (Bhui et al., 2005). Workplace discrimination, with significant financial and health consequences, qualifies as a public health issue. In a workforce study of the effects of racial discrimination, Bhui et al. (2005) found a significant relationship between racial discrimination and depression and anxiety. The mental disorder risk was highest in individuals belonging to ethnic minorities in the UK. Such individuals reported unfair treatment in the workplace and racial insults. The impacts of these practices can either be acute or chronic. Acute life events are one-time events such as physical attacks or racial insults, which increase the risk of anxiety and depression. Chronic events, on the other hand, are persistent events such as fear of losing one’s job as a result of absenteeism. The risk of these events increases with racial discrimination (Bhui et al., 2005). These conditions reduce the firm’s productivity and its ability to provide employment opportunities. Further, discrimination hinders companies’ intention to maintain diversity in their workplaces. Generally, therefore, both the employer and the employees become worse off with employment discrimination, attracting the attention of I/O psychologists.
An Argument for the Prevailing Workplace Gender Stereotypes
Different cultures have different assumptions about male and female characteristics. Some people believe, for instance, that men are independent and aggressive and that women are compliant and sensitive. The standard description of these assumptions or beliefs is stereotypes. Researchers have had different opinions about the effect of these assumptions on workplace discrimination. Some believe that such assumptions do not produce any impact on the workplace. However, other researchers believe that stereotypes create a myriad of effects on the workplace. Sex discrimination is a highly researched issue. Heilman & Eagly (2008) have challenged an earlier claim that dismisses the relationship between stereotypes and prejudice. Their goal is to reinstate the argument that stereotypes partly explain workplace discrimination. In their counterargument, Heilman & Eagly (2008) posit that discrimination does not result from negative stereotypes but the mismatch between desirable work roles and culturally held beliefs about women’s abilities. Although women have generally had a positive cultural stereotype, they have been the primary victims of prejudice. Many people consider women to be kinder and more careful, but those feelings do not translate to more employment. Therefore, managers look into more than just the physical appearance when they choose their employees. Employers concern with the qualities that make an applicant fit for the job, not only her kindness. It is, therefore, wrong to believe that women fall, victims, because stereotypes are negative about them. It is true, however, to say that stereotypes precipitate the feeling that women are not as capable as men in specific jobs. As such, companies prescribe some roles as male gender-typed and others as female gender-typed (Heilman & Eagly, 2008). Belonging in any category determines whether one is going to get the job or not. As such, many women land in secretarial duties while many men land in posts traditionally believed as masculine (such as line managers). In that case, stereotypes partially explain the differences in job mobility between men and women. It is not enough to think that negative stereotypes produce job discrimination; it is more pragmatic to view stereotypes as influencers of unfair evaluations that treat women as unable to perform specific jobs.
Employment Discrimination Models
According to Cherry (2019), researchers can use social cognition (the study of how people use information about others in their social interactions) to study a wide range of topics, including discrimination. The law employs similar theories to decide cases of employment discrimination. The reliance on intuitive psychological models maintains a situation in which stereotypes continue to affect the law’s ability to issue justice. Social psychologists, therefore, need to understand how courts operate to challenge the role of stereotypes in workplace discrimination (Krieger, 2004). One issue that is hard to deny is that the US has made significant progress in combating sex discrimination, but it is yet to realize the full benefits of the law. Over time, for instance, the law has managed to seal the flaw in the pregnancy discrimination law by acknowledging that sex is the primary factor in that issue. However, the judicial system continues to rely on intuitive thinking by judges, which contradicts reality. The definition of discrimination upheld by the judges, for example, does not fully cover the issue (Krieger, 2004). As such, working mothers and mothers seeking employment often experience more difficulty than other job applicants.
Anti-discrimination law relies, to a large extent, on what Krieger (2004) describes as “implicit psychology.” According to the author, judges use psychological theories for two primary purposes: the factual adjudication of cases and substantive lawmaking. The former involves the assessment of the evidence presented, the derivation of inferences, etc. The latter, on the other hand, consists of the creation of remedial theories through the interpretation of statutes (Krieger, 2004). The use of these theories makes it extremely difficult for an employee to prevail in a workplace discrimination case. One of the issues commonly cited is what the author describes as ‘the honest belief rule.” Under that provision, the employee (plaintiff) must prove that the employer intended to discriminate against the employee. In other words, the employee must show that the employer did not believe that the reason they give for discrimination was the actual reason. For example, an employer may claim that the other applicant was more qualified, and it is hard for the employee to disprove that argument. Such flaws make if extremely hard for employees to win discrimination lawsuits. Unfortunately, the judicial system highly relies on those theories (Krieger, 2004).
The Embodiment of Employment Discrimination
According to Krieger (1999), the state, individuals, and non-state actors perpetuate discrimination through either sanctioned or cultural methods. Governments, however, are the critical agents of discrimination because they establish the context for it. States can condone, enforce, enable, or outlaw discrimination. Individuals play a role in discriminating against others by conceiving the view that the groups in which they belong (racial or other) are superior to others. In that sense, discrimination is not exclusively a legal issue (Krieger, 1999). Health providers, as well as all other people, can eliminate discrimination by letting people understand that social justice is the predictor of health (Krieger, 1999). The highest goal, therefore, is equality.
Conclusion
This paper examined various topics concerning workplace discrimination. Key issues include the legal context for employment discrimination, the mental disorders influenced by prejudice, and the legal gaps in discrimination laws. A part of the discussion explains how stereotypes affect workplace segregation and the prevailing circumstances in many organizations. One primary finding is that discrimination is not only a legal issue but also a personal phenomenon. Peoples’ conceptions about others play a role in perpetuating discrimination, such as the belief that some people are superior to others. The elimination of differences begins with the common understanding that segregation is the main hindrance to health and wellbeing. Every individual has the responsibility to teach others and oneself about the detrimental effects of discrimination.
References
Bhui, K., Stansfeld, S., Mckenzie, K., Karlsen, S., Nazroo, J., & Weich, S. (2005). Racial/Ethnic Discrimination and Common Mental Disorders Among Workers: Findings From the EMPIRIC Study of Ethnic Minority Groups in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Public Health, 95 (3), 496–501. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2003.033274
Cherry, K. (2019). Social Cognition in Psychology. Retrieved 11 April 2020, from https://www.verywellmind.com/social-cognition-2795912
Heilman, M. E., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(4), 393-398.
Krieger, L. H. (2004). The Intuitive Psychologist Behind the Bench: Models of Gender Bias in Social Psychology and Employment Discrimination Law. Journal of Social Issues, 60 (4), 835–848.
Krieger, N. (1999). Embodying inequality: A review of concepts, measures, and methods for studying health consequences of discrimination. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH SERVICES, 29 (2), 295–352.
Muchinsky, P. M., & Culbertson, S. S. (2016). Psychology applied to work®: an introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. Summerfield: Hypergraphic Press.