Internal Dispute Resolution: The Transformation of Civil Rights in the Workplace

Abstract

Many employers create internal procedures for the resolution of discrimination complaints. We examine internal complaint handlers' conceptions of civil rights law and the implications of those conceptions for their approach to dispute resolution. Drawing on interview data, we find that complaint handlers tend to subsume legal rights under managerial interests. They construct civil rights law as a diffuse standard of fairness, consistent with general norms of good management. Although they seek to resolve complaints to restore smooth employment relations, they tend to recast discrimination claims as typical managerial problems. While the assimilation of law into the management realm may extend the reach of law, it may also undermine legal rights by deemphasizing and depoliticizing workplace discrimination.

Operating Room: Relational Spaces and Microinstitutional Change in Surgery

“…Middle managers who administer these new programs may ignore the goals of the programs as they juggle multiple work demands . They may even actively discourage the use of the programs to serve their own interests (Edelman 1990;Edelman et al 1993;Harlan and Robert 1998;Heimer and Staffen 1998;Heimer 1999;Edelman et al 2001;Kelly and Kalev 2006), interests that may differ considerably from those of the top managers who established the programs (Edelman and Petterson 1999;Morrill, Zald, and Rao 2003).…”

“…They may also encourage subordinates to blame themselves for the perpetuation of these practices by recasting complaints as due to personality conflicts or employee deficiencies rather than discrimination (Edelman et al 1993;Harlan and Robert 1998). Finally, they may lead subordinates not to claim their rights by encouraging fear of retaliation or the belief that their efforts will not result in change (Edelman et al 1993;Harlan and Robert 1998;Fuller, Edelman, and Matusik 2000;Albiston 2005;Marshall 2005).…”

“…On the other hand, even when top managers provide support for a change in practice to benefit subordinate employees, the employees for whom the programs are designed frequently do not use them (e.g., Kalev, Dobbin, and Kelly 2006;Kelly and Kalev 2006). Often middle managers who administer the programs serve their own interests by actively discouraging the programs' intended beneficiaries from taking advantage of them (e.g., Edelman, Erlanger, and Lande 1993;Heimer 1999;Edelman, Fuller, and Mara-Drita 2001). Yet, despite such pressures to preserve the status quo, real change sometimes does occur in response to regulation.…”

Discrimination at Work: Comparing European, French, and American Law

“…196 French case law, like European law, 197 seeks to ensure that parental leave does not negatively affect employees when they return to the workplace in terms of working conditions and pay: the employee's job before the leave and after the leave must be compared and the jobs must be similar if not identical. 198 Since the EU directive on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women to the self-employed, 199 maternity protection has not been reserved for salaried workers. 200 In the Danosa 201 decision, the CJEU applied Directive 92/85 on the protection of pregnant workers to a woman executive committee member considered to be a "pregnant worker" and who was revoked due to her pregnancy.…”

“…Dobbin is not the only scholar to have analyzed how antidiscrimination law has been integrated, interpreted, and transformed by companies. Berkeley professor Lauren Edelman has conducted in-depth research on how legal norms such as antidiscrimination law 198 and diversity rules are interpreted by companies and therefore transformed when applied to real situations to prevent litigation: this is what she calls the "internalization of law. " 199 Edelman's postulate is that the relationship between law and corporate governance in the United States has undergone four major phases: the first is the legalization of corporate governance; the second is the growth of private dispute resolution; the third is the development of in-house counsel; and the fourth is the rebirth of private policing.…”