Talk:Employment discrimination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideological bias[edit]

This article reads like it has been written or re-written by a staunch free-market libertarian; specifically, it alleges that states or governments are more discriminatory than private enterprise, and that market forces would not allow for discrimination. This language is not entirely consistent, so I can't be sure if it was originally written with a market-libertarian bias, or whether it was heavily redacted by someone with said bias. Either way, I'd highly recommend that this article be flagged for significant revision. Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Explanation for Addition of New Section: Not Only Intentional Discrimination is Illegal[edit]

I added this section to the entry on employment discrimination because although the overview was mostly comprehensive in describing the area of law, it omitted a major aspect: the fact that employers cannot use practices that have a discriminatory impact, even if the practice is neutral and the employer has no intent to discriminate. Over the past two decades, disparate impact lawsuits have become an important way for employees to fight practices that hurt them (even unintentionally) and for employers to become aware of the potentially harmful effects of their business practices. (Posted by User:HLS Group 3''}


This article started out very focused on Employment discrimination law in the United States. I definitely agree that it needs to be expanded to include other countries. But given the large amount of information about United States law, would it be best to move that to its own article and have this give more of a summary of the issue? Perhaps keep the sections on unintentional discrimination and protected categories, and combine the other two into a "law" section, with links to articles on different countries's laws? Opine. --Alynna 23:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and completely reorganised the article and moved the US and UK sections to their own articles. What do people think? Does this look OK? --Alynna 00:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

can prohibit?[edit]

The article asserts that laws "can prohibit discrimination on the basis of..." -- I don't think making a list of all the possible protected categories we can think of at the moment is really necessary - the law can prohibit discrimination on any grounds it sees fit. Maybe that sentence needs to be rephrased or contextualized somehow? I'm not sure what exactly is appropriate. Cheeser1 00:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the "can" to "often"; is that better? --Alynna 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
That makes alot more sense, I'm not sure why that didn't come to mind for me, but it did for you and now it reads sensibly. Thanks. Also, sorry for posting at the top of the page, I'm really out of it today. :) Cheeser1 05:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

First person narration?[edit]

This is the first Wikipedia entry I've seen with first person narration ("I interviewed an out lesbian..."). This is fine for your class paper but not for an encyclopedic's not supposed to be all about anecdotes. This entry really needs to be fleshed out and rewritten with a broader discussion of employment discrimination, maybe more on the history of legal protections. I'm not sure how to write a general entry on this subject that isn't specific to one regional area.

-- (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted this section entitled "United States Discrimination in the Workplace" as it appeared to be an essay and/or original research, and in any case should have gone in Employment discrimination law in the United States. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Occupational Qualification[edit]

In the US it Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Civil Rights Act if 1964) in the UK it's Genuine occupational qualification (Sex Discrimination Act 1975) it should be noted Protected classes are often no absolute especially in Job is an Acting job. --Roguebfl (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Extending Gender Discrimination Section and Engendering the Entire Article, The Reasons:[edit]

I believe, as many human rights advocates do, discrimination is an important problem regarding social and economic injustice. It does not allow people to receive the equal treatment and outcomes they deserve. Neither equality, nor justice will be achieved unless all the individuals in the society are given the same opportunities. Gender discrimination is especially an important issue because women belong to the group that is harmed by discrimination the most all around the world. Regardless of their race, personal choices and country of origins, they are more vulnerable to various problems as a big general group. Therefore, I would like to make these changes: The article lacks sufficient information about gender discrimination or it could be elaborated; it consists of a short paragraph of solely 6 lines. Moreover, the other sections of the entire article can be revised with the issues Feminist Economists underline. In other words, the other sections should be engendered. Orhand12 (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I support your efforts to include more information about gender discrimination and to engender the article. Please take care to maintain a global perspective, as we tend to have problems with systemic bias (usually US-centric). Thanks, Gobōnobō + c 03:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Feedback on the new version of the article[edit]

The article is well written and covers most of the gaps in the previous version. New sections systematically cover the evidence, the competing theories, and policy issues. There are places where the integration of the earlier version with the new text needs attention. At places the old text is not integrated with the new one. For example, "markets punish the discriminator" paragraph indicates Becker shows this is the case, but then the new text talks about the failure of the theory to do so. (I suggest you write out the "markets punish" phrase in sentence form.) These inconsistencies need to be ironed out. Similarly, the government as discriminator. I suggest you delete that phrase, since the next sentence conveys the same idea. Another example: The minimum wage discussion at the end of this section is written from a perspective that suggests the government discriminates against workers by setting the minimum wage. This needs to be edited. The text at the end of the statistical evidence section needs attn: "Therefore, although not all of the unexplained gaps attribute to discrimination," If not discrimination, what are the alternatives for the "unexplained" gaps? Meaurement and data problems come to mind as argued by HK theorists. Make that clear. Another issue: I added a number of links to other Wikipedia articles. You need to go over the article and add these both in this article and in the key articles that you've linked it to (i.e. go to that Wiki article-->edit--> add [[ ]] whereever employment discrimination is mentioned (or you can edit in "employment discrimination" in related articles)BerikG (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: Section 6 is a section of its own that has largely been untouched by the integration of the new text. This section not only needs to be reviewed and edited for consistency with the new text, but also it may need to be called 6.1 (the history of government-sanctioned discrimination, which could also include the US history of racial segregation) and the current subsections would then be renumbered.BerikG (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Bearing in mind this is an english language wikipedia article which has applies equally as a topic outside North America I am surprised as you are using this as a college project you have not pointed out that the article reinforces a wholly US perspective on employment discrimination. I realise your students in Utah would not have the immediate access to a global perspective on ED and that the previous article did not address this either but I would have thought it might have been mentioned in your assessment here.Tmol42 (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Tmol: This paper has been substantially rewritten to incorporate discrimination based on gender (and to some extent race). True, some of the evidence and the policy discussion is US-specific, but when that is the case the author has been careful to specify it as pertaining to the US. S/he is not claiming generality. On the other hand, there is no US bias in the discussion of theories on employment discrimination. These theories have been tested for many other countries as well. While the author does not discuss policies in other countries nor discuss evidence from those countries, actually both of these tend to be remarkably similar elsewhere. Specifically, in other countries too researchers find a very large unexplained component of wage differences by gender, and the standard remedies elsewhere are affirmative action and equal employment policies. After this complete rewrite, the structure of the article is now conducive for other Wiki contributors to add evidence and policy information from other countries.BerikG (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This paper is a long and well written Wikipedia paper. Because it is so long that it includes a lot of claims which are supported where appropriate with references. The contribution considers a variety of perspectives rather than relying on just the point of view of one or two scholar, such as feminist perspective and neoclassical perspectives on the employment discrimination. This paper is good about its frame or structure which is divided into five parts. Among those parts it is logical. The whole paper focuses on a clear topic about employment discrimination. Obviously the contribution takes an appropriate tone in providing competing points of view.--Kerensun (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This article contains a lot of information! It is very useful and well written. I have just a few observations:

  1. In the first abstract you provide a definition of labor market discrimination taken from Blau et al. (2010), would be good to include citation
  2. When you talk about the results found in different studies (Section 2) would be helpful if you could mention the authors of these studies. I know you provide citations for each of them, so it's not a big problem, I just think it would be more convenient for a reader to see in the text the names of these authors. Also if these authors have a page on wikipedia it would be great to provide a link to it.
  3. I believe you should avoid such personal judgements like for example when you write "Women lay-off rates were higher than men, Which was not fair".
  4. the section "Looking at the position of women in World War II U.S. history" is all based on one single study. I think you should mention this in the beginning of the section as well as the fact that this study was carried out with data from one company (Ford). You might want to present arguments proving the representativeness of the sample, but skipping the fact that the whole section is based on one study of one firm might create an erroneous impression to the reader.

Corinabesliu1965 (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Racial/Ethnic Employment Discrimination in the U.S.[edit]

I've read several articles online detailing the experiences of non-whites when applying to jobs(i.e. a person applying to a job with an "ethnic" sounding name has less of a chance of getting the job than someone who has a more "standard" name, regardless of experience/ qualifications). Since I've been extremely busy as of late, I don't have time to do extensive research on the issue and create a new section in this article regarding said issue, but if someone does have the time to do it, then by all means go for it! This isn't an issue that should be overlooked. Nelson Richards (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Nelson Richards (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Nelson Richards (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Nelson Richards (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing work of today[edit]

Being a PhD student in Labour Economics, I added a lot of literature today and tried to introduce more structure in the empirical part ("By region"). In my opinion, subsection "From experiments" is quite outdated. In my opinion at least the paragraphs starting with "The Fair Employment Council" and "Darity and Mason [1998]" should be dropped as they are not seminal at all. In addition, I would refer to subsection "By region" for empirical evidence. However, since these adaptations are quite substantial and since I am a new user, I first wanted to discuss this issue with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation Discrimination[edit]

Under the gender and sexual orientation section, this article fails to highlight how only 20 states in the US protect against discrimination in the workplace by sexual orientation. It also fails to thoroughly explain how most states do not provide workplace discrimination protections on the basis of gender identity, meaning trans and non-binary people are susceptible to more unprotected workplace discrimination than their cisgender counterparts.[1]VC4396 (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

One could also draw a connection between the lack of protections on the basis of gender-identity and how trans people, on average, make less then $10,000 per year.[2] VC4396 (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Therefore, I wonder: 1. What are some currently debated legislations that are combatting workplace discrimination in states that do not protect against it? VC4396 (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 2. How did each state that protects against workplace discrimination come to do so? VC4396 (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 3. For the states that provide protections, when did each protection pass and why? VC4396 (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Schlicht's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Schlicht has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This is, overall, a very good article. I shall add some suggestions for improvement below.

My main concern is with splitting up labor market discrimination into wage and employment discrimination, as to be found in the labor market article. The reason is that with wage discrimination, a member of the discriminated group must be better qualified than a member of the group that is not discriminated. This can be seen as "employment discrimination" or "wage discrimination". Both go together and it may be better to treat them together.

As there is no entry for wage discrimination, I would suggest to rename the entry to "labor market discrimination" and cover both wage discrimination and employment discrimination.

Some points:

I miss a definition of "employment discrimination"

Taste discrimination and statistical discrimination have been developed for wage discrimination, not employment discrimination. That relates to my introductory remark.

The article fails to mention that taste discrimination and statistical discrimination are, according to standard theory, efficient: If people harbor discriminatory preferences, discrimination serves these preferences. As economics draws no distinction between a taste for chocolate and a taste for ethnicity, moral aspects are considered as a matter of taste. (This appears to some, such as myself, as a severs shortcoming of economic arguments in the context of discrimination and may deserve to be mentioned.)

Monopsonistic discrimination is not to be labelled under the heading of "institutional theory", as it is quite mainstream and also has a long tradition (Florence, Robinson, Manning). A survey is provided in Note that monopsonistic discrimination is, in contrast to taste discrimination and statistical discrimination, economically inefficient; see also

Regarding discrimination, two definitions may be distinguished: a tight definition where two applicants that that are equally productive are treated differently for reasons unrelated to productivity or expected productivity, and a loose definition, where two applicants with minimal differences is productivity or expected productivity are treated very differently. For the latter case see section v in

Further, there is efficiency wage discrimination, covered in and, more specifically, selection wage discrimination ( and turnover wage discrimination (

I find the separation between neoclassical an non-neoclassical approaches problematic, because much too schematic; and leaving open what may be the distinguishing characteristics.

I hope that some of the above observations may be helpful

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Schlicht has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

  • Reference : Schlicht, Ekkehart, 2002. "Hiring Standards and Market Clearing," IZA Discussion Papers 481, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Employment discrimination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Expanding Scope of Article[edit]

There's a lot of relevant research that doesn't seem to be included in this article, including individual's self-perceptions when making hiring decisions, hiring discrimination within certain industries, and how various identities interact (i.e. race and gender, family and gender, race and sexual orientation) to affect discrimination. Additionally, despite having a by region section, the article only address North America and Europe, thus including information only on Western countries. However, employment discrimination poses a problem in every country in the world. As such, for a class, I'm considering revising the article to include this information as it would significantly improve the scope of the article. I've already conducted some preliminary research and have found the relevant sources below:

1. Reuben, Enesto, Paola Sapienza, and Luigi Zingales. "How stereotypes impair women's careers in science." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, no. 12 (March 2014): 4403-408. doi:10.1073/pnas.1314788111.

2. Petersen, Trond, and Thea Togstad. "Getting the offer: Sex discrimination in hiring." Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 24, no. 3 (2006): 239-57. doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2006.06.001.

3. Booth, Alison, and Andrew Leigh. "Do employers discriminate by gender? A field experiment in female-dominated occupations." Economics Letters 107, no. 2 (May 2010): 236-38. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2010.01.034.

4. Weichselbaumer, Doris. "Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Hiring." SSRN Electronic Journal, December 2003. doi:10.2139/ssrn.305140.

5. Altonji, Joseph G., and Rebecca M. Blank. "Chapter 48 Race and gender in the labor market." Handbook of Labor Economics, 1999, 3143-259. doi:10.1016/s1573-4463(99)30039-0.

6. Kuhn, Peter, and Kailing Shen. "Gender Discrimination in Job Ads: Evidence from China*." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 128, no. 1 (November 18, 2012): 287-336. doi:10.1093/qje/qjs046.

7. Petit, Pascale. "The effects of age and family constraints on gender hiring discrimination: A field experiment in the French financial sector." Labour Economics 14, no. 3 (June 2007): 371-91. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2006.01.006.

8. Newman, Constance J., Daniel H De Vries, Jeanne D'arc Kanakuze, and Gerard Ngendahimana. "Workplace violence and gender discrimination in Rwanda's health workforce: Increasing safety and gender equality." Human Resources for Health 9, no. 1 (July 19, 2011). doi:10.1186/1478-4491-9-19.

9. Uhlmann, Eric Luis, and Geoffrey L. Cohen. "Constructed Criteria: Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination." Psychological Science 16, no. 6 (June 1, 2005).

10. Fuegen, Kathleen, Monica Biernat, Elizabeth Haines, and Kay Deaux. "Mothers and Fathers in the Workplace: How Gender and Parental Status Influence Judgments of Job-Related Competence." Journal of Social Issues 60, no. 4 (November 8, 2004): 737-54. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00383.x.

11. Grün, Carola. "Direct and indirect gender discrimination in the South African labour market." International Journal of Manpower 25, no. 3/4 (2004): 321-42. doi:10.1108/01437720410541425.

12. Bell, Linda. "Women-Led Firms and the Gender Gap in Top Executive Jobs." IZA Working Paper, July 2005.

13. Duncan, Colin, and Wendy Loretto. "Never the Right Age? Gender and Age-Based Discrimination in Employment." Gender, Work and Organization 11, no. 1 (November 27, 2003): 95-115. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2004.00222.x.

14. Uhlmann, Eric Luis, and Geoffrey L. Cohen. "“I think it, therefore it’s true”: Effects of self-perceived objectivity on hiring discrimination." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 104, no. 2 (November 2007): 207-23. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.07.001.

Jmekoenig (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Employment discrimination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)