Under the Radar: Visibility and the Effects of Discrimination Lawsuits in Small and Large Firms

Abstract

Research on how discrimination lawsuits affect corporate diversity has yielded mixed results. Qualitative studies highlight the limited efficacy of lawsuits in the typical workplace, finding that litigation frequently elicits resistance and even retribution from employers. But quantitative studies find that lawsuits can increase workforce diversity. This article develops an account of managerial resistance and firm visibility to reconcile these divergent findings. First, we synthesize job autonomy and group conflict theories to account for resistance that occurs when dominant groups perceive non-dominant groups to be attempting to usurp managerial authority, in this case through litigation. Second, we integrate insights from organizational institutionalism, which suggests that highly visible firms seek to demonstrate compliance with legal and societal norms. Drawing on this theory, we predict that only large, visible firms will see increases in diversity following lawsuits, and, by the same token, that the most visible workplaces of those large firms, their headquarters, will see the greatest changes. We test our hypotheses with data on litigation and workforce composition from a diverse set of 632 firms that were sued by the EEOC between 1997 and 2006. This study shows that understanding the consequences of lawsuits across firms, and across organizations within them, is key to tackling workplace discrimination.

Tokenism and Its Long-Term Consequences: Evidence from the Literary Field

“…Yet only slightly under the surface of this appreciation of difference is a more conventionally exclusionary hierarchy of tastes (Childress et al 2021;Jarness and Friedman 2017;Johnston and Baumann 2009;Lena 2019;Sherman 2017;Warde and Gayo-Cal 2009). Simultaneously, within organizations and organizational fields there seems to be an increase in the "staging" (Thomas 2018) or "showcasing" (Shin and Gulati 2011) of diversity in ways that may be more surface level or merely presentational than they initially appear (Accominotti, Khan, and Storer 2018;Kang et al 2016;Knight et al 2022). We suspect tokenism might be "of a type," and one form within a wider suite of comparable phenomena.…”

“…Put another way, in isolation, Hypotheses 1a and 1b cannot differentiate between celebrating difference and diversity showcasing ( Shin and Gulati 2011 ), such as when tokenized individuals are thrust forward to “serve as ‘proof’ that the [dominant] group does not discriminate against such people” ( Zimmer 1988 :65; see also Kanter 1977 ). This latter form of tokenism is not uncommon, as seen in the racial staging (and sometimes photoshopping) of pictures in college brochures ( Leong 2021 ; Pippert, Essenburg, and Matchett 2013 ), when firms increase diversity in their most visible locations in response to discrimination lawsuits ( Knight, Dobbin, and Kalev 2022 ), or when music festival organizers put non-white acts in “prominent, visible” locations on the poster for their “aesthetic value” and the reputational kudos they hope to secure ( de Laat and Stuart 2023 :1526, 1535). To differentiate which of these processes is occurring requires further evidence.…”

Diversity initiatives in the US workplace: A brief history, their intended and unintended consequences

“…1 Second, on 2 July 1965, the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity became the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Since its establishment, the EEOC has been the primary enforcer of employment discrimination law (Knight et al., 2022).…”

Do Large Employers Discriminate Less? An Exploration of Company Size Variation in Disability Discrimination Based on Data from two Field Experiments

“…Finally, as the visibility of an organization increases with its size, so does exogenous pressures to conform to societal expectations (Knight, Dobbin and Kalev, 2022; Stainback et al, 2010). Large organizations may therefore be more likely to make deliberate organizational efforts to prevent discrimination and apply policies and practices in support of workforce diversity to sustain a legitimate public image that is sensitive to the social and legal environment.…”