case study workplace discrimination

Real Life Examples of Discrimination in the Workplace

It’s difficult to believe that today, in the 21st century, discrimination is still a major issue, but as much as we would like to think that we live in a world full of peace, harmony and widespread acceptance, this just sadly isn’t the case. 

In fact, more than 25% of workers in the UK have reported having experienced workplace discrimination in some form, according to a study conducted by Sky to mark National Inclusion Week in 2018 which identified that prejudice towards gender, race and age remains fairly commonplace in UK businesses. 

That self-same study recognised that a youth-driven revolution could be underway to counteract this outdated way of thinking as ‘Generation Z’ – the under 25s population – are twice as likely to feel that employers should do more to promote inclusion in the workplace compared to the baby boomers of the workforce (the over 55s). 

Cases of Discrimination in the Workplace

If that is the case, we are looking at the potential for a very happy future in terms of where the world stands on discrimination, but it would seem that with over a quarter of the UK’s working population still admitting to being subject to such prejudice, that we have a long way to go before we get there, as you can see from the cases below. 

Starbucks Dyslexia Case

Starbucks employee Meseret Kumulchew was accused of fraud as her employer claimed she was falsifying documents after she mistakenly entered incorrect information when recording fridge temperatures in a duty roster. As a result, she was given lesser duties, taking away vital parts of her supervisor position and was told she needed to retrain before she could continue with those responsibilities which made up the job she loves.

In an interview, Meseret expressed that she was made to feel like a fraud and was on the verge of wanting to end her life. The only thing that held her back was the thought of her children. 

Meseret took Starbucks to an employment tribunal for disability discrimination as she stated that she had been upfront with her employees from the start, telling them that she was Dyslexic which means that she has difficulties with reading, writing and telling the time. She also advised them that she is a visual learner, meaning that she needs to be physically shown how to complete a task in order to learn. 

The tribunal found that Starbucks failed to make reasonable adjustments for Meseret and had discriminated against her due to the effects of her Dyslexia. It was also found that she was victimised by her employer and that there appeared to be little or no knowledge or understanding of equality issues within the business. 

Richemont Race Discrimination Case

Cheryl Spragg, an employee of Richemont (UK), which owns luxury brands including Cartier and Montblanc, was spied on by her employer, denied the opportunity to progress within the company and was bullied by HR and other staff members as a result of her skin colour.

Following a back injury, Richemont placed Cheryl under close surveillance for a number of days, following her to a wedding and even receiving images of her home and garden. Undoubtedly, this act was unnerving, intimidating and upsetting for her. 

Cheryl was also refused internal progression on the basis that she was black and had applied for the same post on three different occasions, with all three of the recruitment decisions being made by the same people. It was found that the company had a preference for white Europeans and the judge ruling in Cheryl’s claim against race discrimination in the workplace agrees that this was an act of direct discrimination since there was a lack of transparency and properly structured processes for scoring, marking and record-keeping as well as a complete absence of interview records. The HR team had no equality and diversity training and there were no black staff members at a senior level or on the HR team. 

In addition, Cheryl had been subject to bullying when other staff members refused to enter a lift with her which was found as a violation of her dignity. These employees were said to have laughed and pulled faces when Cheryl held the lift door open for them – they walked straight passed and waited for another lift to come. This incident meets the very definition of harassment under the Equality Act 2010 .  

When Cheryl complained to the HR department about the various events which she considered to be discriminatory, she was told to look for a new job and was accused of causing her colleagues distress. She was even told in an email from the HR team that she wasn’t the only ‘black member of staff’ within her team and no other racism allegations had been raised in the past. 

After the judge heard Cheryl’s case and considered the evidence, she won her claim and was awarded compensation for the traumatic and humiliating experience. 

ONS Sex Discrimination Case

Macro-economics specialist, Olwen Renowden, found herself a victim of sex discrimination when she was refused for two open positions at a grade six level by ONS – a role she was more than suitable for, holding professional credentials from some of the world’s most prestigious macro-economics employers such as the Bank of England and the IMF.

It was noted early on by Olwen that the company employed no female economists at grade six level, despite a headcount of over one hundred; and the posts that she and another female candidate (also more than qualified for the role) had applied for were both filled by male applicants – both of whom were young, inexperienced and had never worked at a grade six level prior to their appointment, let alone a specialism in macro-economics.

An additional vacancy was created for employees who had passed the grade six promotion board; however, this was only ever made available to male prospects – female candidates were not offered the same opportunity. 

Olwen raised a grievance but, unfortunately, her appeal was not upheld and she subsequently resigned from ONS. She refused to back down though, and applied to the Employment Tribunal with her case in January 2019 where is was agrees that favouritism was shown towards male staff. What’s more, the tribunal found that those who should have addressed the issue failed to do so, leading to the conclusion that the approach to gender balance pointed towards a culture where discrimination and, in particulat, sex discrimination, is not properly understood by those who are required to ensure its elimination. 

The tribunal found that Owlen’s claims of sex discrimination were successful and the ONS was ordered to pay compensation and interest. 

More about Workplace Discrimination

Here are only a small handful of cases of discimination in the workplace that have occurred in recent years; however, there are a host of other examples which you can view by simply doing a Google search for cases of discrimination in the workplace. 

I think we can all agree that cases like this shouldn’t be making the news. Not because they shouldn’t be reported – while discrimination is a problem, it should always be made known – but because stories like these shouldn’t be happening in the first place; and if you’ve been reading through the cases in this post in horror, hoping that nobody on your payroll is being made to feel discriminated against – or even the ones being prejudice – never fear. Read more about workplace discrimination and how you can combat it as an employer in our post Types of Discrimination in the Workplace . 

Leave a Comment

• Employees 2
• Managing staff 46
• Operations 18
• Small Business 19

Help your small business with HR Software that works.

Starbucks discrimination lawsuit awarded white employee $25 million: Legal experts weigh in

Shannon Phillips received $25.6 million in damages after a six-day trial.

A federal jury this week found that Starbucks discriminated against a white manager who was fired amid an uproar over the company's treatment of Black customers at a store in Philadelphia five years ago.

The ex-manager, Shannon Phillips, received $25.6 million in damages after a six-day trial, Phillips' attorneys previously told ABC News.

The resolution of a lawsuit against one of the nation's largest employers drew attention to the standard for proving discrimination as well as the federal protection against bias afforded to all racial groups, regardless of whether they've faced historical marginalization, experts told ABC News.

The jury appears to have been persuaded in part by the argument that Phillips was fired as part of a public relations effort undertaken by Starbucks in response to racial justice backlash, which may carry implications for how corporations act in such circumstances, experts added.

Starbucks did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment. In court documents , the company rejected allegations of discrimination, saying that it disciplined Phillips for "legitimate, nondiscriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons."

MORE: Starbucks ordered to pay over $25 million to white former manager who claimed racial discrimination

Here's what to know about the Starbucks discrimination case and its implications, according to legal experts:

Why did the jury find that race played a role in the firing of the Starbucks employee?

In 2018, two Black men -- Donte Robinson and Rashon Nelson -- were arrested at a Philadelphia-area Starbucks store after an employee called 911 and accused them of trespassing because they had not made a purchase.

The two men later reached a private settlement with Starbucks and the City of Philadelphia, which agreed to pay each of the men $1 and establish a $200,000 fund for young entrepreneurs.

Phillips, a then-regional director who had worked at the company for nearly 13 years, was terminated less than a month after the incident.

In an initial lawsuit filed by Phillips in 2019, she said she was not at the store that day nor involved in the lead-up to the arrests, alleging instead that her race played a "determinative role" in her termination.

A key piece of evidence in the case centered on testimony from a Black district manager who said he thought race had played a role in Starbucks' decision to fire Phillips and allow him to remain with the company, Phillips' attorney previously told ABC News.

MORE: Target faces criticism from artists involved with Pride month products over response to boycott: ‘Quick to fold’

Legal experts concurred with that assessment, saying that the plaintiff's ability to point to disparate treatment of a relevant employee was critical to the jury's finding of discrimination.

"My understanding is that in these cases what you have to have is a comparative," Rick Rossein, a professor of employee discrimination law at the City University of New York Law School, told ABC News. "Here you have a Starbucks manager giving that type of testimony."

In court documents, Starbucks contested this account of its actions, saying instead that it disciplined Phillips based on poor performance. Phillips "appeared overwhelmed, frozen and lacked awareness of how critical the situation was for Starbucks and its partners," the company claimed .

Phillips appeared to further persuade the jury with her explanation for the alleged mistreatment, describing her firing as part of the company's effort to minimize the public relations fallout from the arrests, the experts added.

"Evidence points to Starbucks taking action against an employee in order to address public opinion as opposed to really addressing the question of who was involved in making that decision," Risa Lieberwitz, a professor of labor and employment law at the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, told ABC News.

Is it unusual for workplace discrimination cases to be brought on behalf of white people?

Phillips’ case is unusual because the majority of cases alleging a violation of federal discrimination law on the basis of race involve non-white people, legal experts told ABC News.

Legal precedent that reaches as high as the Supreme Court affirms that the measure at issue, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, protects white workers who experience discrimination, they added.

"Anti-discrimination law that deals with race discrimination applies to any allegation of race discrimination whether it would be against a white employee, a Black employee or another racial group," Lieberwitz said.

While discrimination lawsuits on behalf of white individuals are uncommon, white plaintiffs have proven more likely to succeed than non-white ones when federal judges adjudicate their racial discrimination claims, said Wendy Greene, a professor of anti-discrimination law at Drexel University Law School and the director of the Center for Law, Policy and Social Action.

MORE: 'Thrown in their faces': Bud Light salespeople say boycott is hurting commission

"The surprise for many people, however, is that federal civil rights laws initially designed to address the longstanding, systemic racial segregation, exclusion and discrimination endured by individuals identifying as non-white are seemingly more effective at redressing racial discrimination against individuals who identify as white," Greene told ABC News.

What are the implications of the finding that Starbucks discriminated in this case?

The decision in this case could heighten scrutiny of large companies in their treatment of workers who belong to groups protected against discrimination as well as complicate efforts to discipline workers charged with improving a company's performance on racial justice issues, experts said.

"We're in the era where people are looking very carefully at decision-making by major corporations," Rosstein said.

Greene, meanwhile, said that the decision could make it more difficult for companies to supervise workers involved in the implementation of racial justice initiatives, since companies could be accused of racial discrimination if they discipline such employees.

MORE: With anti-drag laws on the rise, drag queens reclaim the art as form of protest

Management must balance the need to create a work environment free of racial discrimination with a simultaneous commitment to "ensure workplaces are free of racial exclusion and subordination, which are often couched as acts of racial discrimination against white employees in favor of non-white people," Greene said.

The large award for damages in the Starbucks case could "discourage employers from disciplining or terminating employees they believe are not effectively handling complaints of discrimination," she added.

Related Topics

Popular reads.

Schools close after threats in Springfield, Ohio

• Sep 13, 1:42 PM

Teen shot while looking for place to take photos

• Sep 12, 10:58 AM

Earthquake shakes Los Angeles area

• Sep 12, 6:10 PM

Georgia judge tosses 2 more counts in Trump case

• Sep 12, 4:56 PM

4 dead in shooting at Georgia high school

• Sep 4, 10:47 PM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Labor & Employment Supreme Court Cases

Many of the labor and employment cases that have reached the Supreme Court involve claims of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in the workplace. These may arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits adverse employment actions based on the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of an employee. The Supreme Court also has reviewed cases under parallel anti-discrimination laws, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Meanwhile, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 imposes rules for pension, health, and other benefit plans in the private sector. The Supreme Court has clarified ERISA terms and requirements, in addition to determining whether ERISA preempts various state laws. The ERISA preemption clause provides that the law supersedes any state laws to the extent that they relate to employee benefit plans. However, the ERISA savings clause allows states to regulate the business of insurance.

Other workplace issues addressed by the Supreme Court include employee privacy, wage and hour rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the free speech rights of government employees. The Court also has discussed the use of arbitration to resolve labor and employment disputes.

Below is a selection of Supreme Court cases involving labor and employment, arranged from newest to oldest.

Author: Clarence Thomas

The traditional four-factor test for a preliminary injunction governs NLRB requests for a preliminary injunction from a federal district court while administrative enforcement proceedings take place.

Author: Elena Kagan

Although an employee must show some harm from a forced job transfer to prevail in a Title VII claim, they do not need to show that the injury satisfies a significance test.

Author: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The impact on coworkers is relevant only to the extent that it goes on to affect the conduct of the business.

Author: Neil Gorsuch

An employer that fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.

The federal-sector provision of the ADEA demands that personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age.

The state's extraction of agency fees from non-consenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment.

Author: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision does not extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the SEC.

Author: Stephen Breyer

When an employer demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the employee from engaging in protected political activity, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment and Section 1983 even if the employer's actions are based on a factual mistake about the employee's behavior.

Author: Anthony Kennedy

ERISA preempts a state law that governs or interferes with the uniformity of plan administration.

Author: Antonin Scalia

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, an applicant needs to show only that their need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision. They do not need to show that the employer had knowledge of their need.

Time spent waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable under the FLSA.

Author: Sonia Sotomayor

A public employee's sworn testimony outside the scope of their ordinary job duties is entitled to First Amendment protection.

Title VII retaliation claims must be proved according to traditional principles of but-for causation.

An employee is a supervisor for the purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII only if they are empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.

Author: John Roberts

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses bar lawsuits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches, claiming termination in violation of employment discrimination laws.

A government employer's allegedly retaliatory actions against an employee do not give rise to liability under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment unless the employee's petition relates to a matter of public concern.

In an employment discrimination class action, the conceptual gap between an individual's discrimination claim and the existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury must be bridged by significant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination. More generally, a class in a proposed class action has common questions of law or fact if their claims depend on a common contention of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution, which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each of the claims in one stroke.

If a supervisor performs an act motivated by discriminatory animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, the employer is liable.

A government employer had a right to read text messages sent and received on a pager that the employer owned and issued to an employee.

Before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe that it will be subject to disparate impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action.

A plaintiff bringing an ADEA disparate treatment claim must prove that age was the but-for cause of the adverse employment action.

A provision in a collective bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law.

Author: David Souter

An employer defending a disparate impact claim under the ADEA bears both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion for the “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) affirmative defense.

The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII covers only those employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or applicant. The plaintiff must show that the challenged action well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.

Author: John Paul Stevens

When employees must don protective clothing on the employer's premises before they engage in the productive labor for which they are primarily hired, the time that employees spend walking between the changing area and the production area is compensable under the FLSA. However, the time that employees spend waiting to put on the protective gear is not compensable.

While the ADEA authorizes recovery in disparate impact cases, ADEA Section 4(f)(1) significantly narrows its coverage by permitting any otherwise prohibited action when the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age.

ERISA prevents individuals from suing HMOs in state court for pure eligibility decisions. Also, if an individual at some point in time could have brought their claim under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), and no other independent legal duty is implicated by a defendant's actions, the individual's cause of action is completely preempted.

A plaintiff alleging sexual harassment can establish constructive discharge if they can show that the abusive working environment became so intolerable that their resignation qualified as a fitting response. An employer may assert the Faragher affirmative defense unless the plaintiff quit in reasonable response to an adverse action officially changing their employment status or situation.

Direct evidence of discrimination is not required for a plaintiff to obtain a mixed motive jury instruction under Title VII.

The common-law element of control is the principal guidepost to be followed in deciding whether director-shareholder physicians in a medical clinic should be counted as employees for the purposes of the ADA. Factors to be considered in deciding whether a shareholder-director is an employee include whether the organization can hire or fire the individual or set rules for their work, whether the organization supervises their work, whether they report to someone higher in the organization, whether they can influence the organization, whether written agreements or contracts show that the parties intended the individual to be an employee, and whether the individual shares in the profits, losses, and liabilities of the organization.

HMOs may be insurers and thus subject to state regulation of insurers. State laws directed toward the insurance industry are saved from preemption under ERISA's saving clause.

An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an ADA enforcement action.

Author: Per Curiam

Judicial review of a labor arbitration decision pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement is very limited. Courts are not authorized to review an arbitrator's decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties' agreement. Even when the arbitrator's award may properly be vacated, the appropriate remedy is to remand the case for further arbitration proceedings.

A retaliation claim will not withstand a summary judgment motion when nobody could reasonably believe that the incident of which the plaintiff complained violated Title VII.

The exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which excludes contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce, is confined to transportation workers.

Author: Sandra Day O’Connor

A prima facie case of discrimination, combined with sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to reject the employer's non-discriminatory explanation for its decision, may be adequate to sustain a finding of liability for intentional discrimination under the ADEA.

Mixed treatment and eligibility decisions by health maintenance organization (HMO) physicians are not fiduciary decisions under ERISA.

An employer's conduct does not need to be independently egregious to satisfy the requirements for a punitive damages award in a Title VII case. However, in the punitive damages context, an employer may not be vicariously liable for the discriminatory employment decisions of managerial agents when these decisions are contrary to the employer's good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII.

For a union to waive employees' rights to a federal judicial forum for statutory anti-discrimination claims, the agreement to arbitrate these claims must be clear and unmistakable.

An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate or successively higher authority over the employee. When no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may raise an affirmative defense if they can show that they exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.

Under Title VII, an employee who refuses the unwelcome and threatening sexual advances of a supervisor, yet suffers no adverse, tangible job consequences, may recover damages from the employer without showing that the employer was negligent or otherwise at fault for the supervisor's actions, but the employer may interpose an affirmative defense. (The defense consists of the elements in Faragher below.)

Sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII.

The power to amend or abolish an employee welfare benefit plan does not include the power to discriminate against the plan's participants and beneficiaries for the purpose of interfering with their attainment of rights under the plan.

The salary-basis test denies exempt status under the Fair Labor Standards Act when employees are covered by a policy that permits disciplinary or other deductions in pay as a practical matter. That standard is met if there is either an actual practice of making such deductions or an employment policy that creates a significant likelihood of such deductions.

When employers or other plan sponsors adopt, modify, or terminate pension plans, they do not act as fiduciaries but are analogous to settlors of a trust.

The fact that one member of a protected class lost out to another member is irrelevant to an employment discrimination claim so long as they lost out because of their protected trait.

A law operating as an indirect source of merely economic influence on administrative decisions should not suffice to trigger ERISA preemption.

An employee discharged in violation of the ADEA is not barred from all relief when, after their discharge, their employer discovers evidence of wrongdoing that, in any event, would have led to their termination on lawful and legitimate grounds had the employer known of it.

Title VII is violated when the workplace is permeated with discriminatory behavior that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a discriminatorily hostile or abusive working environment. This standard requires an objectively hostile or abusive environment, as well as the victim's subjective perception that the environment is abusive.

An employment decision based on years of service is not necessarily age-based, since this factor is analytically distinct from age.

The common-law test for determining who qualifies as an employee under ERISA considers the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. Other factors to consider include the skill required, the source of the instrumentalities and tools, the location of the work, the duration of the relationship between the parties, the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work, and the method of payment, among others.

Author: Byron White

An ADEA claim can be subjected to compulsory arbitration.

ERISA's deemer clause demonstrates Congress' clear intent to exclude from the reach of the saving clause self-funded ERISA plans by relieving them from state laws purporting to regulate insurance. State laws directed toward such plans are preempted because they relate to an employee benefit plan but are not saved because they do not regulate insurance.

The proper comparison in a disparate impact employment discrimination case is generally between the racial composition of the at-issue jobs and the racial composition of the qualified population in the relevant labor market.

Author: William Brennan

In the specific context of sex stereotyping, an employer that acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender.

A policy of paying discharged employees for their unused vacation time does not constitute an employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA, and a criminal action to enforce that policy is not foreclosed.

For disclosure purposes, a “participant” in an ERISA plan means an employee in currently covered employment (or reasonably expected to be in currently covered employment), or a former employee who has a reasonable expectation of returning to covered employment or who has a colorable claim to vested benefits. To establish that they may become eligible for benefits, a claimant must have a colorable claim that they will prevail in a suit for benefits, or that eligibility requirements will be fulfilled in the future.

The National Labor Relations Act does not permit a union, over the objections of dues-paying non-member employees, to expend funds collected from them on activities unrelated to collective bargaining activities.

Disparate impact analysis in an employment discrimination claim may be applied to subjective employment criteria.

To be preempted by ERISA, a state statute must have some connection with or reference to a plan.

ERISA preempts state common law tort and contract actions asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits under an insured employee benefit plan.

Both the inception and the scope of the intrusion must be reasonable when a public employer intrudes on the constitutionally protected privacy interests of government employees for non-investigatory, work-related purposes, as well as for investigations of work-related misconduct.

Author: William Rehnquist

A claim of hostile environment sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that is actionable under Title VII.

Author: Harry Blackmun

A law relates to an employee benefit plan for ERISA purposes if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.

When a public employee speaks as an employee on matters only of personal interest, a federal court is generally not the appropriate forum to review the wisdom of a personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to the employee's behavior.

A non-job-related test that has a disparate impact and is used to limit or classify employees is used to discriminate within the meaning of Title VII, even if it was not designed or intended to have this effect and even if an employer tries to compensate for its discriminatory effect.

Author: Lewis Powell

When a plaintiff in a Title VII case has proved a prima facie case of employment discrimination, the defendant bears only the burden of explaining clearly the non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. It is sufficient if the defendant's evidence raises a genuine issue of fact as to whether it discriminated against the plaintiff.

Author: Potter Stewart

A regulation could permit private employees of a private employer to avoid workplace conditions that they believe pose grave dangers to their own safety, when the employees have no power under the regulation to order their employer to correct the hazardous condition or to clear the dangerous workplace of others.

A public employee does not forfeit their First Amendment protection when they arrange to communicate privately with their employer, rather than expressing their views publicly.

To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, a plaintiff need only show that facially neutral standards select applicants for hire in a significantly discriminatory pattern. If the employer proves that the challenged requirements are job-related, the plaintiff may show that other selection devices without a similar discriminatory effect would also serve the employer's legitimate interest in efficient and trustworthy workmanship.

Once a prima facie case has been established by statistical workforce disparities, the employer must have an opportunity to show that the claimed discriminatory pattern was a product of pre-Title VII hiring, rather than unlawful post-Title VII discrimination.

In cases alleging a pattern or practice of employment discrimination, the government must show that discrimination was the standard operating procedure of the defendant. Statistics may be used in proving discrimination.

An employee's statutory right to trial de novo under Title VII is not foreclosed by prior submission of their claim to final arbitration under the non-discrimination clause of a collective bargaining agreement.

In a private, non-class action complaint under Title VII charging racial employment discrimination, the complainant has the burden of establishing a prima facie case, which they can satisfy by showing that they belong to a racial minority, they applied and were qualified for a job that the employer was trying to fill, they were rejected, and the employer continued to seek applicants with their qualifications.

Author: Warren Burger

An employment practice that operates to exclude members of a protected group is prohibited if it cannot be shown to be related to job performance, even if the employer lacked discriminatory intent.

Author: Thurgood Marshall

When a public employee's false statements concerned issues that were currently the subject of public attention and did not interfere with the performance of their duties or the general operation of their employer, they were entitled to the same protection as if the statements had been made by a member of the general public.

Author: Robert H. Jackson

Rulings, interpretations, and opinions of agency administrators are not controlling on courts but provide a body of experience and informed judgment that courts can use for guidance. The weight of such a judgment depends on the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors that give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control. Also, no principle of law precludes a determination that waiting time is working time under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The fact that an employer has individual contracts of employment with a majority of its employees does not preclude the employees from exercising their right under the National Labor Relations Act to choose a representative for collective bargaining, nor does it warrant refusal by the employer to bargain with this representative regarding terms covered by the individual contracts.

Author: Charles Evans Hughes

In recognizing the right to strike, the National Labor Relations Act contemplates a lawful strike. When a strike, even if it arose from unfair labor practices, is initiated and conducted in lawlessness by the seizure and retention of the employer's property, and the strikers are discharged because of their lawlessness, they do not remain employees under the NLRA.

A restraint or regulation of the liberty to contract is due process if it is reasonable in relation to its subject and adopted for the protection of the community against evils menacing the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the people. Also, in dealing with the relation of employer and employed, the legislature has a wide field of discretion in order that there may be suitable protection of health and safety, and that peace and good order may be promoted through regulations designed to ensure wholesome conditions of work and freedom from oppression.

Author: George Sutherland

Legislation fixing hours or conditions of work may properly take into account the physical differences between men and women, but the doctrine that women of mature age require (or may be subjected to) restrictions on their liberty of contract that could not lawfully be imposed on men in similar circumstances must be rejected.

Author: David Josiah Brewer

The regulation of the working hours of women falls within the police power of the state, and a statute directed exclusively to such regulation does not conflict with the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses.

Author: John Marshall Harlan

It is not within the power of Congress to make it a criminal offense against the United States for a carrier engaged in interstate commerce to discharge an employee simply because of their membership in a labor organization. A provision to that effect is an invasion of personal liberty and the right of property and is unenforceable under the Due Process Clause.

A U.S. court has no jurisdiction under the Thirteenth Amendment or other federal laws of a charge of conspiracy made and carried out in a state to prevent citizens of African descent, because of their race and color, from making or carrying out contracts and agreements to labor.

Author: Rufus Wheeler Peckham

The general right to make a contract in relation to one's business is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this includes the right to purchase and sell labor, except as controlled by the state in the legitimate exercise of its police power.

• Due Process
• Free Speech
• Health Care
• LGBTQ+ Rights
• Civil Rights and Discrimination
• Employment Law
• Health Care Law
• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Race, ethnicity, and discrimination at work: a new analysis of legal protections and gaps in all 193 UN countries

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion

ISSN : 2040-7149

Article publication date: 1 February 2023

Issue publication date: 18 December 2023

While only one aspect of fulfilling equal rights, effectively addressing workplace discrimination is integral to creating economies, and countries, that allow for everyone's full and equal participation.

Design/methodology/approach

Labor, anti-discrimination, and other relevant pieces of legislation were identified through the International Labor Organization's NATLEX database, supplemented with legislation identified through country websites. For each country, two researchers independently coded legislation and answered questions about key policy features. Systematic quality checks and outlier verifications were conducted.

More than 1 in 5 countries do not explicitly prohibit racial discrimination in employment. 54 countries fail to prohibit unequal pay based on race. 107 countries prohibit racial and/or ethnic discrimination but do not explicitly require employers to take preventive measures against discrimination. The gaps are even larger with respect to multiple and intersectional discrimination. 112 countries fail to prohibit discrimination based on both migration status and race and/or ethnicity; 103 fail to do so for foreign national origin and race and/or ethnicity.

Practical implications

Both recent and decades-old international treaties and agreements require every country globally to uphold equal rights regardless of race. However, specific national legislation that operationalizes these commitments and prohibits discrimination in the workplace is essential to their impact. This research highlights progress and gaps that must be addressed.

Originality/value

This is the first study to measure legal protections against employment discrimination based on race and ethnicity in all 193 UN countries. This study also examines protection in all countries from discrimination on the basis of characteristics that have been used in a number of settings as a proxy for racial/ethnic discrimination and exclusion, including SES, migration status, and religion.

• Discrimination
• Migration status

Heymann, J. , Varvaro-Toney, S. , Raub, A. , Kabir, F. and Sprague, A. (2023), "Race, ethnicity, and discrimination at work: a new analysis of legal protections and gaps in all 193 UN countries", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion , Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 16-34. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-01-2022-0027

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Jody Heymann, Sheleana Varvaro-Toney, Amy Raub, Firooz Kabir and Aleta Sprague

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

Work plays a fundamental role in shaping the conditions of people's lives. Earnings from employment are the predominant source of income for most people; income in turn shapes access to a wide range of necessities including housing, transportation, and food, as well as non-essentials that impact quality of life and access to opportunities. In many countries where health insurance is partial or incomplete, work shapes access to healthcare. And by affecting where families live and whether caregivers can take time off to meet the developmental needs of children, the availability and conditions of work can have profound impacts on child development and education. Likewise, as adults age, as well as at the end of life, work histories can and do shape retirement income in most countries, and working conditions influence the ability of adults to care for aging family members.

As a result, when discrimination impedes work opportunities or results in loss of income, the consequences affect not only the quality and equality of work lives, but also of many other spheres of life. Moreover, when certain groups of workers routinely face bias in the workplace, this discrimination widens other inequalities in the economy, with ripple effects that have impacts on health, housing, children's access to quality education, and equal rights more broadly.

Given these vast and intergenerational impacts, the extent and persistence of workplace discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity worldwide—which occurs at each stage of employment, including hiring, promotions, demotions, pay, working conditions, and terminations—represents a significant threat to both individual households and societies as a whole, as well as a clear violation of fundamental human rights. Moreover, studies in countries around the world have documented how employment discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity commonly intersects with discrimination based on migration status, socioeconomic status, gender, and other characteristics, compounding other forms of inequality. While only one aspect of fulfilling equal rights, effectively addressing workplace discrimination is integral to creating economies, and countries, that allow for everyone's full and equal participation.

In this article, we review the research evidence on employment discrimination based on race and on the impact of anti-discrimination legislation, and then present the methods and results of the first study of anti-discrimination protections in all 193 UN countries.

Discrimination in hiring

A wide range of studies have demonstrated racial and ethnic discrimination in hiring, including studies in which researchers submit fictitious CVs and applications that reflect similar credentials and experience, but that vary with respect to photos, names, and/or experiences suggestive of different racial or ethnic identities. These “correspondence studies,” which improved on prior methods of testing for racial discrimination by making candidates substantively identical except for markers of race/ethnicity ( Bertrand and Duflo, 2017 ), find that presumed race/ethnicity influences the likelihood that a particular candidate receives an invitation to interview, with those representing historically marginalized racial or ethnic groups consistently receiving fewer callbacks ( Baert, 2018 ).

Other research approaches include direct interviews with hiring managers and simulations in which study participants rate the strength of hypothetical job candidates based on their photos and descriptions of their experience and characteristics where, again, the principal aspect varied is race/ethnicity, either on its own or together with intersectional characteristics like migration status or gender.

These research approaches also document the persistence of discrimination in hiring across jobs and geographies. For example, research in Nigeria found that managers of both public and private organizations were more likely to hire applicants from their own ethnic group ( Adisa et al. , 2017 ). A study spanning five European countries—Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and the United Kingdom—demonstrated discrimination in the hiring of Black and Middle Eastern men ( Di Stasio and Larsen, 2020 ).

Discrimination based on common proxies for race or ethnicity can likewise shape job prospects. In Canada, for example, migrants from sub-Saharan Africa report that their accents can be a barrier to becoming employed and having career mobility ( Creese, 2010 ), while in the US, numerous court cases have illustrated how Black women commonly face barriers to employment because their natural hairstyles are found to violate “neutral” grooming codes ( Greene, 2017 ).

Discrimination is also often intersectional. In Germany, a 2020 study found that women with Turkish names were less likely than those with German names to receive interview invitations, and this gap widened further for women wearing headscarves ( Weichselbaumer, 2020 ). Similarly, in a Mexico study, both marital status and skin color affected women's chance of receiving an interview ( Arceo-Gomez and Campos-Vasquez, 2014 ). In Belgium, women from minority ethnic groups were less likely to be considered for a “high-cognitive demanding job” than either native women or minority ethnic men ( Derous and Pepermans, 2019 ).

Discrimination in promotions

Studies have also documented racial and ethnic discrimination in promotions across professions, from police forces to law firms to universities ( Tomlinson, 2019 ; Zempi, 2020 ). From Finland to South Africa to the United Kingdom and the United States, workers from marginalized racial and ethnic groups report discrimination in promotion, consistent with the research evidence based on multilevel multivariate studies of discrimination, as well as based on implicit bias testing of supervisors ( Hatch et al. , 2016 ; Mayiya et al. , 2019 ; Stalker, 1994 ; Yu, 2020 ; Zempi, 2020 ). In Canada, research has documented that visible minorities have less upward mobility even after controlling for education, work experience, time with the employer, and other factors ( Javdani, 2020 ), including both supply- and demand-side factors ( Javdani and McGee, 2018 ; Yap, 2010 ; Yap and Konrad, 2009 ).

Aside from direct discrimination in promotions, employer practices that evaluate employee conduct differently or otherwise deny opportunities for professional advancement based on race or ethnicity can affect opportunities within the workplace. For example, a study that experimentally changed the race/ethnicity of an employee in a photo while asking study participants to evaluate their performance demonstrated that simple acts such as being late for work led to a significantly greater negative impact on the appraisal of hypothetical employees when the photo showed a Black or Latinx employee than when the photo showed a white employee ( Luksyte et al. , 2013 ). Visible minorities are also less likely to receive training opportunities that can influence upward mobility in the labor force ( Dostie and Javdani, 2020 ).

Discrimination in terminations

Both direct discrimination by employers and structural discrimination that cuts across economies can make workers from marginalized racial and ethnic groups more vulnerable to terminations. For example, studies have found that during economic downturns, immigrants and workers from historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups face heightened risks of labor market discrimination and job loss ( Couch and Fairlie, 2010 ; Lessem and Nakajima, 2019 ). Moreover, the consequences of past discrimination and exclusion from economic opportunities mean that workers from underrepresented groups are less likely to have seniority within a given organization or company. As a result, in addition to direct racial/ethnic discrimination that may lead to higher rates of termination, “last hired, first fired” policies can result in indirect discrimination against workers from historically excluded groups.

Impacts of discrimination in hiring, job positions, and promotions on pay inequality

Discrimination in hiring can impact initial salaries and level and type of starting position. When individuals are hired into jobs below their skill level because of bias based on race and ethnicity, they earn less than they would have earned had there been no discrimination ( Coleman, 2003 ). Likewise, when discrimination results in the overrepresentation of workers from historically marginalized racial/ethnic groups in limited employment capacities, including temporary or seasonal jobs, gaps in both pay and benefits further widen. Survey research across 30 European countries showed that even after controlling for education, experience, occupation, and other categories, racial and ethnic minorities were more likely to end up in jobs where their skills were underutilized, leading to lower wages than if they were in a position more matched to their skills and offering reduced pathways for advancement ( Rafferty, 2020 ). In Chile, qualitative research has found that Peruvian migrants simultaneously experience limited employment trajectory due to their external migrant status alongside racialization by local Chileans who perceive them to be more fit for low-status and low-income positions due to assumptions about their physical and cultural traits ( Mora and Undurraga, 2013 ).

Direct pay discrimination

Even for the same job position, the “unexplained” wage differential after taking experience into account gives an indication of the amount of the wage differential that could be due to discrimination and bias. One-half to two-thirds of wage differences across racial and ethnic groups in some studies have been estimated to be due to bias ( Drydakis, 2012 ; Piazzalunga, 2015 ). While the data clearly demonstrates the existence of bias and discrimination in pay against specific groups in a range of countries, there has not been a comprehensive look across countries and racial/ethnic groups to document in detail when and where the wage gaps are greatest and lowest, before and after taking into account the impact of bias throughout the work lifecourse.

The documented and potential impacts of national laws addressing discrimination

Individual countries that have passed antidiscrimination laws have seen improvements including greater equality in hiring and lowering of wage disparities ( Leck et al. , 1995 ). While antidiscrimination laws alone do not eliminate discrimination in hiring, pay, promotions, or terminations, studies both across countries and across populations have demonstrated that antidiscrimination laws can make a difference. In Canada, for example, studies of the Employment Equity Act found that the share of visible minorities who were employed in the private sector increased to much closer to the percentage of the population following the law's adoption ( Agocs, 2002 ; Leck and Saunders, 1992 ). In the United States, studies have found that antidiscrimination laws contributed to wage and income increases for Black workers ( Collins, 2003 ; Donohue and Heckman, 1991 ) and a narrowing of the racial/ethnic pay gap ( Chay, 1998 ).

These findings on laws' impacts on employment outcomes by race parallel those observed for other groups of marginalized workers. For example, one study of 141 countries found that laws prohibiting gender discrimination in employment increased women's labor force participation in formal jobs ( del Mar Alonso-Almeida, 2014 ), while in the UK, legislation guaranteeing equal pay and non-discrimination in employment on the basis of sex resulted in a 19.4% increase in women's earnings and a 17% increase in women's employment rates relative to men's ( Zabalza and Zafiris, 1985 ). Moreover, explicitly prohibiting all forms of workplace discrimination matters to norms. In addition to their practical or applied value, laws prohibiting discrimination have important expressive value that can shape workplace expectations as well as societal views of equality more broadly, with the potential to affect rates of both explicit and implicit bias ( Sunstein, 1996 ). At the same time, the past several decades of antidiscrimination law have revealed important gaps to address. First, as many of the studies cited in the previous section illustrated, racial and ethnic discrimination commonly co-occurs with discrimination based on migration status, foreign national origin, social class, and other characteristics, highlighting the cumulative and often intersectional impacts of key facets of identity on work-related experiences around the world. Clearly banning all common grounds of discrimination, including those used as proxies for race or ethnicity or that commonly intersect with race or ethnicity, is a critical first step.

Second, prohibitions of indirect discrimination can offer important protection against racial/ethnic discrimination, including in instances where discrimination based on an unprotected ground has disparate impacts on the basis of race or ethnicity. This is true both for common grounds of discrimination that would ideally be explicitly covered by domestic labor laws (as they are by international treaties, e.g. national origin) ( Demetriou, 2016 ), as well as proxies for racial/ethnic discrimination that are not generally addressed on their own (e.g. accents and hairstyles) ( Justesen, 2016 ). In contrast, when discrimination laws take an overly formal approach to discrimination that only covers acts that were direct or intentional, they fail to account for the extensive evidence demonstrating that policies and practices that are racially neutral on their face may have disproportionate consequences for workers from historically marginalized groups.

Third and finally, while protections against employment discrimination are essential, more attention must be paid to implementation. While a range of actions are needed, evidence shows that having legal protections in place against retaliation may increase reporting rates by reassuring workers that their careers will be protected if they report discrimination ( Bergman et al. , 2002 ; Gorod, 2007 ; Keenan, 1990 ; Pillay et al. , 2018 ).

This is the first study to examine legislation in all 193 UN countries to map the extent to which each country in the world has protections against racial and ethnic discrimination in hiring, promotions, training, demotions, and terminations, as well as whether they proactively support implementation through clear legislative prohibitions of retaliation for reporting. Further, we examine to what extent countries not only address direct discrimination based on race/ethnicity, but also indirect racial/ethnic discrimination and/or direct discrimination based on grounds that can serve as proxies depending on the historical and societal context for racial discrimination, including religion, migration status, and socioeconomic status. Further, we highlight examples where countries explicitly address intersectionality. Finally, we examine whether there were gains over the past five years in the number of countries that are prohibiting each type of discrimination.

Methodology

Data source.

We constructed a database of prohibitions against discrimination in private sector labor in all 193 UN member states as of January 2021. Labor, anti-discrimination, and other relevant pieces of legislation were identified through the International Labor Organization's NATLEX database, supplemented with legislation identified through country websites. A coding framework was developed to systematically capture key policy features. This coding framework was reviewed by researchers, lawyers, and other leaders working on employment discrimination and tested on a subset of countries before database coding commenced.

For each country and protected characteristic studied, two researchers independently read legislation in its original language or a translation and used the coding framework to assess whether legislation specifically prohibited discrimination in each aspect of work or broadly, whether there were any exceptions to prohibitions of discrimination based on employer characteristics, and whether there were specific provisions in place to support effective implementation. In countries where anti-discrimination protections are legislated subnationally, the lowest level of protection across states or provinces was captured. Answers were then reconciled to minimize human error. When the two researchers could not arrive at an agreement based on the codebook framework, the full coding team met to discuss, and the coding framework was updated to reflect the decision. When updates were made, countries that had already been coded were checked for consistency with the update.

Once coding was complete, systematic quality checks were conducted of variables that proved challenging for researchers during the coding process. Randomized quality checks were conducted of variables that were more straightforward, checking first twenty countries to ensure no errors were identified and a larger subset of countries if there were errors. Finally, outlier verifications globally and by region or country income level were conducted for all variables. In order to assess whether legislative provisions have strengthened over time, similar methods were used to construct measures of laws in place as of August 2016.

Strength of prohibitions of discrimination

We examined legislation across six areas: hiring, pay, training, promotions and/or demotions, termination, and harassment. For each area, we assessed the strength of protection against racial and ethnic discrimination. We classified countries as having a “specific prohibition of racial or ethnic discrimination” if legislation either: 1) explicitly addressed racial and ethnic discrimination in that aspect of work (“racial discrimination in hiring is prohibited”); or 2) broadly prohibited racial discrimination at work (“there shall be no discrimination at work based on race”) and guaranteed equality in the specific area (“no one shall be discriminated against in hiring decisions”). For equal pay, we further distinguished between countries that guaranteed equal pay for equal work and those that had a stronger provision guaranteeing equal pay for work of equal value which would prohibit differences in pay when there is occupational segregation.

Countries were classified as having a “broad prohibition of racial or ethnic discrimination” if legislation broadly prohibited discrimination based on race or ethnicity, but did not address specific aspects of work. Countries were coded as having a “general prohibition of discrimination” if legislation did not explicitly address race or ethnicity but banned discrimination in an aspect of work for all workers. “No explicit prohibition” denotes when legislation did not take any of the approaches above. We separately analyzed whether prohibitions of discrimination included indirect discrimination, which would protect against seemingly neutral practices or criteria that have disparate impacts across race and/or ethnicity.

Intersecting characteristics

In many countries racial and/or ethnic discrimination is deeply intertwined with other characteristics, including social class, migration status, foreign national origin, and religion. Accordingly, we assessed whether laws prohibit discrimination based on both race and/or ethnicity and these intersecting characteristics.

Employer responsibilities

We assessed whether legislation required employers to take measures to prevent racial or ethnic discrimination in the workplace. In doing so, we distinguished between legislation that made it a general responsibility and legislation that outlined specific steps for employers to take. These specific prevention steps included requirements to create a code of conduct to prevent racial discrimination, establish disciplinary procedures, raise awareness of anti-discrimination laws, or conduct trainings to prevent discrimination.

Prohibitions of retaliation

To capture the extent to which provisions effectively covered the range of forms that retaliation can take, we coded the protections for individuals who reported discrimination, filed a complaint, or initiated litigation (any adverse action, disciplinary action, or retaliatory dismissal only) and whether prohibitions of retaliation covered all workers participating in the investigation.

Firm-based exceptions

In some countries, prohibitions of discrimination are weakened by provisions that exempt certain employers. We captured exceptions that broadly applied to prohibitions of discrimination or specifically in different aspects of work based on firm type for small businesses, charities and non-profits, and religious organizations.

All analyses were conducted using Stata MP 14.2. Differences were assessed by region using the Pearson's chi-square statistics. Region was categorized according to the World Bank's country and lending groups as of 2020 [ 1 ].

Globally, 153 countries prohibited at least some form of racial and/or ethnic discrimination at work in 2021, a modest increase from 148 countries in 2016 ( Figure 1 ). Three of the countries introducing these new prohibitions were in Sub-Saharan Africa (Mali, South Sudan, and Zambia), one in Europe (Iceland), and one in the South Pacific (Tuvalu). An additional five countries expanded existing prohibitions of racial and/or ethnic discrimination either to broadly prohibit discrimination at work in addition to specific prohibitions in certain areas (Barbados and Honduras) or to comprehensively cover discrimination at work in all areas, as well as indirect racial and/or ethnic discrimination (Andorra, Burundi, and Sao Tome and Principe).

Gaps in prohibitions are found in every region of the world. Countries in the Americas were the most likely to prohibit at least some form of racial discrimination at work, followed closely by Europe and Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. In each of these regions, only ten percent or fewer of countries lacked at least some form of prohibition. In contrast, a majority of countries lack prohibitions of racial discrimination in East Asia and Pacific and South Asia ( Figure 2 ). Differences were statistically significant between these two regions and the three regions with the highest levels of prohibitions ( p  < 0.01).

In 2016, 107 countries had a law that explicitly prohibited race-based discrimination in hiring. That number increased to 115 countries in 2021 (see Figure 2 ). An additional 27 countries in 2016 and 29 countries in 2021 had either a broad prohibition of race discrimination or a general prohibition of discrimination in hiring. Prohibitions of racial/ethnic discrimination in hiring were most common in Europe and Central Asia (91%) followed by sub-Saharan Africa (62%). In all other regions, fewer than half of countries prohibited racial discrimination in hiring ( Figure 3 ).

Training and promotions/demotions

Eighty countries in 2016 and 88 countries in 2021 prohibited discrimination based on race in training. Eighty-three countries in 2016 prohibited discrimination in promotions and demotions. In 2021, this number increased to 90 countries.

While less than three-quarters of countries prohibited racial discrimination in training in Europe and Central Asia (74%), these prohibitions were still more common than in every other region. Similar trends were found for promotions and/or demotions.

The number of countries guaranteeing equal pay for work of equal value, increased from 34 in 2016 to 41 in 2021. Overall, including guarantees both of equal pay for work of equal value and equal pay for equal work, 91 countries in 2016 and 96 countries in 2021 guaranteed equal pay across racial and ethnic groups. More countries in Europe and Central Asia (77%) prohibited racial discrimination in pay than those in sub-Saharan Africa (56%), the Middle East and North Africa (27%), and South Asia (27%).

Terminations

In 2016, 106 countries prohibited racial discrimination in terminating employment. That number increased to 112 countries in 2021. Prohibitions of racial/ethnic discrimination in terminations were most common in Europe and Central Asia (74%), Sub-Saharan Africa (71%), and the Americas (60%). In contrast, less than a third of countries prohibited racial discrimination in terminations in East Asia and Pacific (30%) and South Asia (25%).

Only 66 countries explicitly prohibited workplace harassment based on race/ethnicity in 2016. By 2021, that number had increased to 72. Only a minority of countries prohibited racial and/or ethnic harassment in all regions except Europe and Central Asia.

Indirect discrimination

Sixty-three countries prohibited indirect discrimination based on race and/or ethnicity in 2016, increasing to 71 countries in 2021. Only a third of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, a fifth of those in East Asia and Pacific and the Americas, and an eighth of those in South Asia explicitly addressed indirect racial/ethnic discrimination. No countries in the Middle East and North Africa did so.

Intertwined, multiple and intersectional discrimination

Prohibitions of discrimination based on both race and/or ethnicity and religion were widespread: 151 countries prohibited at least some aspect of workplace discrimination based on both characteristics in 2021. However, only 117 countries prohibited at least some aspect of workplace discrimination based on both race and/or ethnicity and social class. Even fewer prohibited discrimination based on both race and/or ethnicity and foreign national origin (90 countries) or migration status (81 countries).

Countries in sub-Saharan Africa were most likely to prohibit discrimination based on race and social class, as well as discrimination based on race and foreign national origin. While prohibitions of racial discrimination and religion, social class, or foreign national origin were comparatively high in the Americas, prohibitions of discrimination based on migration status were markedly lower. While nearly two-thirds of countries in Europe and Central Asia addressed migration status alongside race, only half prohibited discrimination based on foreign national origin ( Figure 4 ).

Finally, a minority of countries explicitly addressed the concepts of intersectionality or multiple discrimination in their discrimination legislation. Kenya's National Gender and Equality Commission Act recognizes intersectionality in defining marginalized groups to be people “disadvantaged by discrimination on one or more of the grounds in Article 27(4) of the Constitution” which includes “race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth” ( 2012 ). Australia's Racial Discrimination Act prohibits “acts done for 2 or more reasons” where “one of the reasons is the race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin of a person” ( 1975 ). In Macedonia, the Law on Prevention of and Protection Against Discrimination defines multiple discrimination to be a severe form of discrimination ( 2010 ).

Only a smaller minority of countries (38) took the additional step of requiring employers to take one or more specific measures to prevent racial discrimination. An additional 8 countries had general language requiring employers to take preventative steps, without specifying what those steps would look like.

Protections in the event of discrimination

In the event that discrimination occurred and employees filed a report or initiated litigation, a modest majority of countries took the important step of prohibiting retaliation against the employee who filed the complaint. Seventy-eight countries prohibited employers from retaliating in any way, an additional 7 prohibited harassment or any disciplinary action, and 26 only prohibited dismissing the employee ( Table 1 ). A similar number of countries (76) protected employees who participated in investigations from being retaliated against.

Are any employers exempt?

When countries had laws in place prohibiting discrimination, they overwhelmingly applied to all employers. In rare cases small businesses were exempt, including in 5 countries in the case of hiring, 4 countries in the case of training and terminations, and 3 countries in the case of pay and promotions and demotions ( Table 2 ). Charities and nonprofits had similarly uncommon exemptions. The group that was most frequently exempted from these prohibitions of racial discrimination were religious organizations. Fourteen countries exempted religious organizations from bans on discriminations based on race in hiring, training, and terminations, 13 exempted religious organizations in terms of racial discrimination in promotions and demotions, and 9 in the case of pay.

Around the world there has been an explosion of demonstrations and attention to the critical issue of racial discrimination over the past two years, building on the many decades of activism urging action on racial injustices that came before. And while catalyzed by state violence, these recent demonstrations also clearly took aim at the deeply entrenched economic disparities across race that persist across countries, which were on full display as workers from marginalized racial and ethnic groups lost jobs in historic numbers two months into the pandemic.

In response, governments and companies worldwide pledged action. Ensuring that discrimination is clearly prohibited in every country is an essential first step both for changing norms and attitudes and for giving people who are discriminated against more tools to combat the discrimination. Modest progress has been made over the past five years in increasing guarantees of equality, regardless of race and ethnicity, around the world. Between 2016 and 2021, the number of countries legally prohibiting racial and ethnic discrimination in the workplace increased and the strength of provisions improved. Eight more countries prohibited discrimination in hiring and 6 more in terminations. Seven more countries guaranteed equal pay for work of equal value based on race. Moreover, 8 more countries prohibited indirect discrimination based on race and ethnicity.

Yet unconscionable gaps remain. More than 1 in 5 countries have no prohibition of workplace discrimination based on race. Moreover, more than 1 in 4 countries, 54 in total, have no prohibition against racial discrimination in pay. Furthermore, more than a dozen countries provide for exceptions to the prohibition of racial discrimination for religious organizations.

Many countries also fail to offer adequate legal protection against both direct racial discrimination and other forms of discrimination that often occur simultaneously, have disparate impacts on the basis of race, and/or serve as proxies for racial discrimination. For example, in many countries around the world, marginalized racial and ethnic groups are also disproportionately poor due to historic and ongoing economic exclusion. In settings where racial and ethnic discrimination is prohibited but social class-based discrimination remains allowed, class-based discrimination can be used to practically discriminate based on race and ethnicity, particularly if indirect discrimination is likewise unaddressed in the law. Yet 76 countries fail to prohibit discrimination based on both social class and race and/or ethnicity; 121 lack protections against indirect discrimination; and 58 countries lack either protection.

Similarly, while discrimination based both on race/ethnicity and migration status is pervasive, many countries lack comprehensive protections addressing these and related grounds. The evidence illustrating why stronger laws are needed is compelling. For example, a study on labor force participation in Western Europe found that migrants from sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia earned over 20% less income than Western European internal migrants. Compared to internal Western European migrants, external migrants from MENA and sub-Saharan Africa regions were also less likely to be employed and part of the labor force in Europe ( Kislev, 2017 ). National laws that formally and explicitly prohibit multiple forms of discrimination may help protect more individuals and reduce inequalities in employment opportunities. Yet, 112 countries fail to prohibit discrimination based on both migration status and race and/or ethnicity and 103 fail to do so for foreign national origin and race and/or ethnicity.

Finally, even when legal protections are in place, it is crucial that there are both prevention and enforcement mechanisms. 107 countries prohibited racial and ethnic discrimination but did not place any explicit requirements on employers to try to prevent discrimination. Only 38 countries required employers to take specific steps and only an additional 8 required employers generally to work towards prevention.

The critical need to accelerate progress

The significant overall gaps in protections, alongside the findings that the expansion over the past five years of laws prohibiting racial discrimination at work has been slow, underscores the need to accelerate the pace of change on legal reforms—as a matter of human rights, an important determinant of individual and household incomes, and a prerequisite for countries to reach their full potential. Ensuring equal opportunities in employment on the basis of race and ethnicity has vast implications for individuals, families, and their broader communities. A significant body of literature has documented how access to employment, job quality, and adequate income shape mental and physical health, overall life satisfaction, and the ability to meet material needs ( Calvo et al ., 2015 ; Murphy and Athansou, 1999 ). When work opportunities are unevenly distributed by race due to both individual and structural discrimination, these disparities drive broader inequalities.

Moreover, all countries have agreed to do so. The Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by all UN member states in 2015, commit governments to “empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status” and “[e]nsure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard” ( United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015 ). By adopting the SDGs, countries worldwide agreed to realize these commitments by 2030. To meet that timeline, accelerating the pace of change on fundamental anti-discrimination protections is essential.

This builds on a long history of international agreements guaranteeing equal rights regardless of race or ethnicity, including in the field of employment. Many of these have been in place for decades. Foremost among them is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ( United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1965 ), which has been ratified by 182 countries ( United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2021c ), declares that States Parties have a duty to “prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of (…) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration” ( United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1965 ).

In fact, nearly every major global human rights agreement commits countries to treating all people equally regardless of race or ethnicity. These include, among others, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted as the first global agreement of the United Nations and considered binding on all countries ( United Nations General Assembly, 1948 ), the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, a binding treaty ratified by 171 countries ( United Nations General Assembly, 1966 ; United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2021b ), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by 173 countries ( United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1966 , 2021a ).

Finally, beyond its importance to individuals, families, and communities and deep intrinsic value as a matter of human rights, ending racial discrimination in the labor market has significant implications for economies and companies. For example, in the US alone, estimates from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco find that closing the racial gaps in employment-to-population ratios between 1990 and 2019 would have boosted 2019 GDP by over $150 billion ( Buckman et al. , 2021 ), while other research has forecast that closing the racial earnings gap by 2050 would boost GDP by 22% ( Turner, 2018 ). Likewise, a significant body of evidence demonstrates that greater racial and ethnic diversity within companies, including on boards, improves their financial performance and degree of innovation ( Erhardt et al. , 2003 ; Herring, 2009 ; Cheong and Sinnakkannu, 2014 ; Thomas et al. , 2016 ; Hunt et al. , 2018 ). For example, a study of 492 firms found a strong relationship between ethnic and linguistic diversity and total revenue, dividends, sales and productivity ( Churchill, 2019 ). Particularly as more companies work and hire trans-nationally, the extent to which laws in all countries prohibit racial and ethnic discrimination at work matters to overall performance.

Research limitations and the need for a broader research agenda on policies and outcomes

While this study provides an important first look at prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination at work in all the world's countries, it has important limitations. This study did not quantify laws related to intersectional discrimination, including, among others, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Yet as past scholarship and case law have shown, addressing each individual basis for discrimination still may not be enough to reach the unique forms of discrimination that arise when multiple grounds of discrimination intersect, particularly if workers are required to prove each of their discrimination claims discretely and sequentially. Explicit protections against intersectional discrimination, and judiciaries willing and trained to apply them, may be needed ( Crenshaw, 1989 ; Fredman, 2016 ).

Future research should also examine prohibitions of discrimination in working conditions, given the evidence of inequalities. For example, research has shown that non-Hispanic Black workers and foreign-born Hispanic workers are disproportionately hired into jobs with the higher injury risk and increased prevalence of work-related disability ( Seabury et al. , 2017 ). Another study on COVID-19 job exposures found that Latinx and Black frontline workers were overrepresented in lower status occupations associated with higher risk and less adequate COVID-19 protections, contributing to the higher prevalence of infection in these populations ( Goldman et al. , 2021 ).

Further, we need to measure laws that reduce bias in informal as well as formal mechanisms that play a large role in the recruitment, hiring, and promotion processes, as well as in determining working conditions. Evidence has shown social networks and informal relationships can not only impact recruitment, but also can contribute to inequities in salary negotiations and mentorship at the hiring stage ( Seidel et al. , 2000 ; Spafford et al. , 2006 ).

These expansions on the law and policy data presented here should be part of a broader research agenda on racial equity in the global labor market that examines not only which laws and policies are in place but what impacts they are having. As with other policy areas, developing longitudinal quantitative, globally comparative measures of anti-discrimination laws helps make it possible for researchers to rigorously analyze the relationship between policy change and outcomes, producing actionable evidence about “what works” across countries ( Raub et al. , 2022 ). However, even with the new policy data we have developed, improvements in outcomes data will be essential to measure the impact globally of advances and legal gaps. Globally comparative data on experiences of racial discrimination across countries which is essential for measuring the impact of legal change globally has been limited to date for several reasons including the wide range across countries of who suffers racial and ethnic discrimination and the variability of country willingness to collect data.

Addressing discrimination: a global responsibility

While the workplace is only one location where racial and ethnic discrimination occurs, it is a crucial one. Ensuring equal opportunity to be hired and equal treatment in pay, working conditions, and promotions together influences whether individuals can lead full work lives, contribute to household income, and not only meet basic needs but also invest in the future of their families and communities. Moreover, global agreements have committed countries around the world to combatting discrimination based on race and ethnicity, including in the specific context of employment.

For these international instruments to have full impact, however, specific country-level legislation that operationalizes their commitments and prohibits discrimination in the workplace is essential. To accelerate progress toward ending racial and ethnic discrimination in employment worldwide—a basic human right—we need to monitor the steps countries are taking to address and eliminate discrimination in all aspects of work, including hiring, promotion, pay, and terminations. While legal guarantees are not enough—and norm change, leadership, and social movements are likewise critical to successfully eliminating discrimination both at work and more broadly—clear stipulations that companies are not allowed to discriminate are essential, as are strong and regularly updated accountability mechanisms.

Do countries prohibit racial and/or ethnic discrimination in all aspects of work?

Number of countries prohibiting racial and/or ethnic discrimination at work by aspect of work and year

Percentage of countries prohibiting racial and/or ethnic discrimination at work by region and aspect of work

Number of countries prohibiting at least some discrimination at work based on race and/or ethnicity and intersecting characteristics by region

Countries with prohibitions of retaliation against those reporting discrimination

Countries with exceptions to prohibitions of racial and/or ethnic discrimination

The World Bank's (WB) regional classifications can be found here: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups . While Malta is classified as part of the Middle East and North Africa by the WB, it is also a member of the European Union (EU) and therefore more likely to have legislation reflecting the EU's principles and directives. Thus, we classified Malta as a part of Europe and Central Asia. All other countries retained their WB classifications.

Adisa , T.A. , Osabutey , E.L.C. , Gbadamosi , G. and Mordi , C. ( 2017 ), “ The challenges of employee resourcing: the perceptions of managers in Nigeria ”, The Career Development International , Vol.  22 No.  6 , pp.  703 - 723 .

Agocs , C. ( 2002 ), “ Canada's employment equity legislation and policy, 1987-2000: the gap between policy and practice ”, International Journal of Manpower , Vol.  23 No.  3 , pp.  256 - 276 .

Arceo-Gomez , E. and Campos-Vazquez , R. ( 2014 ), “ Race and marriage in the labor market: a discrimination correspondence study in a developing country ”, American Economic Review , Vol.  104 No.  5 , pp.  376 - 380 .

Baert , S. ( 2018 ), “ Hiring discrimination: an overview of (almost) all correspondence experiments since 2005 ”, Audit Studies: Behind the Scenes with Theory, Method, and Nuance , pp.  63 - 77 .

Bergman , M.E. , Langhout , R.D. , Palmieri , P.A. , Cortina , L.M. and Fitzgerald , L.F. ( 2002 ), “ The (un)reasonableness of reporting: antecedents and consequences of reporting sexual harassment ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol.  87 No.  2 , pp.  230 - 242 .

Bertrand , M. and Duflo , E. ( 2017 ), “ Field experiments on discrimination ”, in Banerjee , A.V. and Duflo , E. (Eds), Handbook of Economic Field Experiments , Elsevier , Amsterdam , Vol.  1 , pp.  309 - 393 .

Buckman , S.R. , Choi , L.Y. , Daly , M.C. and Seitelman , L.M. ( 2021 ), The Economic Gains from Equity , Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper , San Francisco .

Calvo , E. , Mair , C. and Sarkisian , N. ( 2015 ), “ Individual troubles, shared troubles: the multiplicative effect of individual and country-level unemployment on life satisfaction in 95 Nations (1981-2009) ”, Social Forces , Vol.  93 No.  4 , pp.  1625 - 1653 .

Chay , K.Y. ( 1998 ), “ The impact of federal civil rights policy on black economic progress: evidence from the equal employment opportunity act of 1972 ”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review , Vol.  51 No.  4 , pp.  608 - 632 .

Cheong , C.W.H. and Sinnakkannu , J. ( 2014 ), “ Ethnic diversity and firm financial performance: evidence from Malaysia ”, Journal of Asia-Pacific Business , Vol.  15 No.  1 , pp. 73 - 100 , doi: 10.1080/10599231.2014.872973 .

Churchill , S.A. ( 2019 ), “ Firm financial performance in sub-Saharan Africa: the role of ethnic diversity ”, Empirical Economics , Vol.  57 No.  3 , pp.  1 - 14 .

Coleman , M.G. ( 2003 ), “ Job skill and Black male wage discrimination ”, Social Science Quarterly , Vol.  84 , pp.  892 - 906 .

Collins , W.J. ( 2003 ), “ The labor market impact of state-level anti-discrimination laws, 1940-1960 ”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review , Vol.  56 No.  2 , pp.  244 - 272 .

Couch , K.A. and Fairlie , R. ( 2010 ), “ Last hired, first fired? Black-white unemployment and the business cycle ”, Demography , Vol.  47 No.  1 , pp.  227 - 247 .

Creese , G. ( 2010 ), “ Erasing English language competency: African migrants in Vancouver, Canada ”, International Migration and Integration , Vol.  11 No.  3 , pp.  295 - 313 , doi: 10.1007/s12134-010-0139-3 .

Crenshaw , K. ( 1989 ), “ Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics ”, The University of Chicago Legal Forum , p. 139 .

del Mar Alonso-Almeida , M. ( 2014 ), “ Women (and mothers) in the workforce: worldwide factors ”, Women's Studies International Forum , Vol.  44 , pp.  164 - 171 .

Demetriou , C. ( 2016 ), “ The equality body finds that restrictions in access to self-employment for third country nationals amount to unlawful discrimination, Cyprus ”, European Commission , available at: https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/3840-cyprus-the-equality-body-finds-that-restrictions-in-access-to-self-employment-for-third-country-nationals-amount-to-unlawful-discrimination-pdf-95-kb ( accessed 7 January 2022 ).

Derous , E. and Pepermans , R. ( 2019 ), “ Gender discrimination in hiring: intersectional effects with ethnicity and cognitive job demands ”, Archives of Scientific Psychology , Vol.  7 No.  1 , pp.  40 - 49 .

Di Stasio , V. and Larsen , E.N. ( 2020 ), “ The racialized and gendered workplace: applying an intersectional lens to a field experiment on hiring discrimination in five european labor markets ”, Social Psychology Quarterly , Vol.  83 No.  3 , pp.  229 - 250 .

Donohue , J.J. and Heckman , J. ( 1991 ), “ Continuous versus episodic change: the impact of civil rights policy on the economic status of blacks ”, Journal of Economic Literature , Vol.  29 No.  4 , p. 1603 .

Dostie , B. and Javdani , M. ( 2020 ), “ Immigrants and workplace training: evidence from Canadian linked employer–employee data ”, Industrial Relations , Vol.  59 No.  2 , pp.  275 - 315 .

Drydakis , N. ( 2012 ), “ Roma women in Athenian firms: do they face wage bias? ”, Ethnic and Racial Studies , Vol.  35 No.  12 , pp.  2054 - 2074 .

Erhardt , N.L. , Werbel , J.D. and Shrader , C.B. ( 2003 ), “ Board of director diversity and firm financial performance ”, Corporate Governance , Vol.  11 No.  2 , pp. 102 - 111 , doi: 10.1111/1467-8683.00011 .

Fredman , S. ( 2016 ), “ Intersectional discrimination in EU gender equality and non-discrimination law ”, European Commission .

Goldman , N. , Pebley , A.R. , Lee , K. , Andrasfay , T. and Pratt , B. ( 2021 ), “ Racial and ethnic differentials in COVID-19-related job exposures by occupational standing in the US ”, PLoS One , Vol.  16 No.  9 .

Gorod , B.J. ( 2007 ), “ Rejecting reasonableness: a new look at title VII's anti-retaliation provision ”, American University Law Review , Vol.  56 No.  6 , pp.  1469 - 1524 .

Greene , D.W. ( 2017 ), “ Splitting hairs: the Eleventh Circuit’s take on workplace bans against Black women’s natural hair in EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions ”, University of Miami Law Review , Vol.  71 , p. 987 .

Hatch , S.L. , Gazard , B. , Williams , D.R. , Frissa , S. , Goodwin , L. , SelcoH , S.T. and Hotopf , M. ( 2016 ), “ Discrimination and common mental disorder among migrant and ethnic groups: findings from a South East London Community sample ”, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology , Vol.  51 No.  5 , pp.  689 - 701 .

Herring , C. ( 2009 ), “ Does diversity pay?: race, gender, and the business case for diversity ”, American Sociological Review , Vol.  74 No.  2 , pp. 208 - 224 , doi: 10.1177/000312240907400203 .

Hunt , V. , Prince , S. , Dixon-Fyle , S. and Yee , L. ( 2018 ), Delivering Through Diversity , McKinsey & Company , Los Angeles .

Javdani , M. ( 2020 ), “ Visible minorities and job mobility: evidence from a workplace panel survey ”, The Journal of Economic Inequality , Vol.  18 , pp. 491 - 524 .

Javdani , M. and McGee , A. ( 2018 ), “ Labor market mobility and the early-career outcomes of immigrant men ”, IZA Journal of Development and Migration , Vol.  8 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 28 .

Justesen , P. ( 2016 ), “ Board of Equal Treatment ruling on so-called ‘language barrier’, Denmark ”, European Commission , available at: https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/3920-denmark-board-of-equal-treatment-ruling-on-so-called-language-barrier-pdf-131-kb ( accessed 7 January 2022 ).

Keenan , J.P. ( 1990 ), “ Upper-level managers and whistleblowing: determinants of perceptions of company encouragement and information about where to blow the whistle ”, Journal of Business and Psychology , Vol.  5 No.  2 , pp.  223 - 235 .

Kislev , E. ( 2017 ), “ Deciphering the ‘ethnic penalty’ of immigrants in Western Europe: a cross-classified multilevel analysis ”, Social Indicators Research , Vol.  134 No.  2 , pp.  725 - 745 , doi: 10.1007/s11205-016-1451-x .

Law on Prevention of and Protection Against Discrimination ( 2010 ), “ Skopje: constitutional court of the republic of Macedonia ”, No.  82 , available at: https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5aa12ad47.pdf .

Leck , J.D. and Saunders , D.M. ( 1992 ), “ Canada's employment equity act: effects on employee selection ”, Population Research and Policy Review , Vol.  11 No.  1 , p. 21 .

Leck , J.D. , St. Onge, S. and Lalancette , I. ( 1995 ), “ Wage gap changes among organizations subject to the employment equity act ”, Canadian Public Policy , Vol.  21 No.  4 , pp.  387 - 400 .

Lessem , R. and Nakajima , K. ( 2019 ), “ Immigrant wages and recessions: evidence from undocumented Mexicans ”, European Economic Review , Vol.  114 , pp.  92 - 115 .

Luksyte , A. , Waite , E. , Avery , D.R. and Roy , R. ( 2013 ), “ Held to a different standard: racial differences in the impact of lateness on advancement opportunity ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , Vol.  86 No.  2 , pp.  142 - 165 .

Mayiya , S. , Schachtebeck , C. and Diniso , C. ( 2019 ), “ Barriers to career progression of Black African middle managers: the South African perspective ”, Acta Universitatis Danubius Oeconomica , Vol.  15 No.  2 .

Mora , C. and Undurraga , E.A. ( 2013 ), “ Racialisation of immigrants at work: labour mobility and segmentation of Peruvian migrants in Chile ”, Bulletin of Latin American Research , Vol.  32 No.  3 , pp.  294 - 310 , doi: 10.1111/blar.12002 .

Murphy , G.C. and Athanasou , J.A. ( 1999 ), “ The effect of unemployment on mental health ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , Vol.  72 No.  1 , pp.  83 - 99 .

National Gender and Equality Commission Act ( 2012 ), “ Ch. 5C, Nairobi: national council for law reporting with the authority of the attorney-general ”, available at: www.kenyalaw.org .

Piazzalunga , D. ( 2015 ), “ Is there a double-negative effect? Gender and ethnic wage differentials in Italy ”, Labour , Vol.  29 No.  3 , pp.  243 - 269 .

Pillay , S. , Ramphul , N. , Dorasamy , N. and Meyer , D. ( 2018 ), “ Predictors of whistle-blowing intentions: an analysis of multi-level variables ”, Administration and Society , Vol.  50 No.  2 , pp.  186 - 216 .

Racial Discrimination Act ( 1975 ), “ Barton: attorney General's department, Australian government ”, available at: https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/australias-anti-discrimination-law .

Rafferty , A. ( 2020 ), “ Skill underutilization and under-skilling in Europe: the role of workplace discrimination ”, Work, Employment and Society , Vol.  34 No.  2 , pp.  317 - 335 .

Raub , A. , Sprague , A. , Waisath , W. , Nandi , A. , Atabay , E. , Vincent , I. , Moreno , G. , Earle , A. , Perry , N. and Heymann , J. ( 2022 ), “ Utilizing a comparative policy resource from the WORLD policy analysis center covering constitutional rights, laws, and policies across 193 countries for outcome analysis, monitoring, and accountability ”, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice , Vol.  24 No.  4 , pp. 313 - 328 , doi: 10.1080/13876988.2021.1894073 .

Seabury , S.A. , Terp , S. and Boden , L.I. ( 2017 ), “ Racial and ethnic differences in the frequency of workplace injuries and prevalence of work-related disability ”, Health Affairs , Vol.  36 No.  2 , pp.  266 - 273 .

Seidel , M.-D.L. , Polzer , J.T. and Stewart , K.J. ( 2000 ), “ Friends in high places: the effects of social networks on discrimination in salary negotiations ”, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol.  45 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 24 .

Spafford , M.M. , Nygaard , V.L. , Gregor , F. and Boyd , M.A. ( 2006 ), “ ‘Navigating the different spaces’”: experiences of inclusion and isolation among racially minoritized faculty in Canada ”, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education , Vol.  36 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 27 .

Stalker , P. ( 1994 ), The Work of Strangers: A Survey of International Labour Migration , International Labour Office , Geneva .

Sunstein , C. ( 1996 ), “ On the expressive function of law ”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review , Vol.  144 No.  5 , pp.  2021 - 2053 .

Thomas , A. , Dougherty , J. , Strand , S. , Nayar , A. and Janani , M. ( 2016 ), Decoding Diversity: The Financial and Economic Returns to Diversity in Tech , Intel Corporation and Dalberg Global Development Advisors , New York .

Tomlinson , J. , Valizade , D. , Muzio , D. , Charlwood , A. and Aulakh , S. ( 2019 ), “ Privileges and penalties in the legal profession: an intersectional analysis of career progression ”, The British Journal of Sociology , Vol.  6 No.  70 , pp.  1043 - 1066 .

Turner , A. ( 2018 ), The Business Case for Racial Equity: A Strategy for Growth , W.K. Kellogg Foundation and Altarum , Battle Creek, MI .

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs ( 2015 ), “ Reduce inequality within and among countries, goal 10 ”, available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal10 (accessed 17 September 2021) .

United Nations General Assembly ( 1948 ), “ Universal declaration of human rights, resolution 217 A (III) ”, available at: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ ( accessed 15 July 2021 ).

United Nations General Assembly ( 1966 ), “ International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights ”, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx ( accessed 16 July 2021 ).

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( 1965 ), “ International convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination ”, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cerd.aspx ( accessed 16 July 2021 ).

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( 1966 ), “ International convention on civil and political rights ”, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx ( accessed 16 July 2021 ).

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( 2021a ), “ Status of ratification interactive dashboard - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ”, available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=IV-4&src=IND (accessed 16 July 2021) .

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( 2021b ), “ Status of ratification interactive dashboard - International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ”, available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4 (accessed 15 July 2021) .

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( 2021c ), “ Status of ratification interactive dashboard - International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ”, available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-2&chapter=4&clang=_en (accessed 16 July 2021) .

Weichselbaumer , D. ( 2020 ), “ Multiple discrimination against female immigrants wearing headscarves ”, ILR Review , Vol.  73 No.  3 , pp.  600 - 627 .

Yap , M. ( 2010 ), “ The intersection of gender and race: effects on the incidence of promotions ”, Canadian Journal of Career Development , Vol.  9 No.  2 , pp. 22 - 32 .

Yap , M. and Konrad , A.M. ( 2009 ), “ Gender and racial differentials in promotions: is there a sticky floor, a mid-level bottleneck, or a glass ceiling? ”, Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations , Vol.  64 No.  4 , pp.  593 - 619 .

Yu , H. ( 2020 ), “ Multiracial feminism: an intersectional approach to examining female officers’ occupational barriers in federal law enforcement ”, Women and Criminal Justice , Vol.  31 No.  5 , pp. 327 - 341 , doi: 10.1080/08974454.2020.1734146 .

Zabalza , Z. and Zafiris , T. ( 1985 ), “ The effect of Britain's anti-discriminatory legislation on relative pay and employment ”, The Economic Journal , Vol.  95 No.  379 , pp.  679 - 699 .

Zempi , I. ( 2020 ), “ ‘Looking back, I wouldn't join up again’: the lived experiences of police officers as victims of bias and prejudice perpetrated by fellow staff within an English police force ”, Police Practice and Research: An International Journal , Vol.  2 No.  21 , pp.  33 - 48 .

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Discrimination at work: ‘I was shocked when the interviewer ghosted me’

Limited time offer, save 50% on standard digital, explore more offers..

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism. Cancel anytime during your trial.

Premium Digital

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• FT App on Android & iOS
• FT Edit app
• FirstFT: the day's biggest stories
• 20+ curated newsletters
• Follow topics & set alerts with myFT
• FT Videos & Podcasts
• 20 monthly gift articles to share
• Lex: FT's flagship investment column
• 15+ Premium newsletters by leading experts
• FT Digital Edition: our digitised print edition

FT Digital Edition

10% off your first year. The new FT Digital Edition: today’s FT, cover to cover on any device. This subscription does not include access to ft.com or the FT App.

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

More From Forbes

Walmart is sued for gender and race discrimination by eeoc.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

AMERICAN CANYON, CALIFORNIA - NOVEMBER 16: A sign is posted in front of a Walmart store on November ... [+] 16, 2021 in American Canyon, California. Walmart reported better-than-expected third quarter earnings with revenues of $140.53 billion, or $1.45 per share, compared to the analyst expectations of $135.60 billion, or $1.40 per share. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Days after former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores sued the NFL and others for discrimination, another discrimination lawsuit is in the news . But this time the alleged discrimination took place in the retail industry.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today that a Walmart store in Iowa violated federal law when it gave a Black female employee an unsanitary lactation space based upon her race and failed to promote her based on sex stereotypes about mothers with small children.

The EEOC said it is seeking back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for the former employee, as well as injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination.

Statement From Walmart

A Walmart spokesperson said that, “We do not tolerate discrimination of any kind, and diversity and inclusion is a key company priority.

“We take allegations like this seriously and tried for the past two years to resolve this matter with the EEOC to avoid litigation. We will address the claims in Court after we are served.”

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, cases on the rise.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission , there were more than 21,000 filed charges of sex discrimination in fiscal year 2020, up by more than 31% from 2019. Race discrimination lawsuits increased by almost 32% over the same period. Several of those lawsuits created negative publicity for companies and organizations and hurt their image and reputation.

Nicole Porter is a law professor The University of Toledo and teaches classes on employment law. She said that, "Despite two decades-old laws prohibiting sex discrimination sex discrimination remains prevalent in many— perhaps most—workplaces.

“But the prevalence of such discrimination varies widely from one workplace to another. Workplaces where sex discrimination runs rampant are generally in male-dominated industries that are often infused with a macho, uber-competitive culture and authoritative management styles,” she observed.

“Workplaces that are very hierarchical with extremely rigid rules tend to be less hospitable to women (and other subordinated groups, such as people with disabilities, people of color, and LGBT+ employees),” Porter noted.

EEOC’s Walmart Investigation

According to a press release from the EEOC, the agency’s pre-suit investigation revealed that “Walmart failed to promote the employee to a management position at its Ottumwa store because it assumed she would not remain with the company long due to her having a newborn at home. Walmart also gave her an unsanitary storage closet to express her breast milk, a facility that was inferior to the clean office space it provided to a White employee for the same purpose.”

The EEOC said it filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“It is inexcusable and unlawful that qualified women are still facing these kinds of discrimin­atory barriers to career advancement in the workplace,” said Gregory Gochanour, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District Office. “Federal law clearly prohibits employers from making discrim­inatory promotion decisions based on sex stereotypes and requires employers to provide equal working conditions for their employees regardless of race.” 

Advice For Business Leaders

Porter at The University of Toledo said, “Employers hoping to avoid the negative effects of discrimination, which includes possible legal liability as well as damage to their reputation, should scrutinize their entire management structure and culture.

“Women should have a seat at the table at all levels of management. Rigid workplace rules and norms should be scrutinized to determine if they can be justified (and “this is the way it has always been” is not a justification). The better workplace cultures will have management that empowers all employees to work together to excel at their jobs, while giving them as much autonomy as possible.”

‘Discrimination Is Preventable’

Attorney Nirupa Netram has more than two decades of experience in the legal, corporate, and government sectors in the areas of law, compliance, human resources, and operations. She said that, “The good news is discrimination is preventable. Businesses should send a clear message that their organization does not tolerate discrimination or any other form of illegal and/or unethical conduct.

Policies And Reporting Procedures

“Leaders must ensure their company has anti-discrimination policies, which comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws. Such policies are typically written by an attorney with experience in labor law and that attorney should review such policies annually and revise them, if necessary,” she noted.

Netram said,“Additionally, as part of those policies, the organization should have a written mechanism for employees to internally report instances of suspected discrimination. The organization should regularly (at least annually) communicate its policies and reporting methods to its employees.

Mandatory Training

“There should also be mandatory training for every employee annually on how to recognize, prevent, and report workplace discrimination. If an employee reports an instance of discrimination, the company should promptly and thoroughly investigate the claim neutrally, which, depending on the circumstances, may involve using an outside, third-party entity to conduct the investigation,” she advised.

Take Appropriate Actions

“And, if an investigation reveals the complaint has merit, the business must take appropriate action, including separating the offender, if warranted, without delay. This sends a clear signal of the company’s strong commitment to an ethical and inclusive workplace, which is vital to the success and longevity of the business, including its employees,” Netram concluded.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

LGBTQ People’s Experiences of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment

• Full Report
• 2021 Version

In 2020, U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County extended employment non-discrimination protections to LGBTQ people nationwide. Using survey data collected in the summer of 2023, this report examines the lifetime, five-year, and past-year experiences of discrimination and harassment among LGBTQ employees.

• Brad Sears Founding Executive Director
• Neko Castleberry Research Data Analyst
• Andy Lin Senior Statistical Consultant, UCLA Office of Advanced Research Computing
• Christy Mallory Legal Director

Executive Summary

Over 8 million workers in the U.S. identify as LGBT. 1   Employment discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity have been widely documented. 2   Recent research has found that LGBTQ people continue to face mistreatment in the workplace, 3     even after the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2020 that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 4     Experiences of workplace discrimination and harassment negatively impact employees’ health and well-being, as well as their job commitment, satisfaction, and productivity. These primary effects can, in turn, result in higher costs and other negative outcomes for employers. 5  

This report examines experiences of discrimination and harassment against LGBTQ employees using a survey of 1,902 LGBTQ adults in the workforce conducted in the summer of 2023. It is based on a similar study published by the Williams Institute in 2021. 6     This report examines the lifetime, five-year, and past-year workplace experiences of LGBTQ employees. It compares the experiences of transgender and nonbinary (TNB) employees to those of cisgender LGBQ employees, LGBTQ employees of color to those of White LGBTQ employees, and LGBTQ employees who are out to at least someone in the workplace compared to those who are out to no one.

Our analysis indicates that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people continues to be persistent and widespread. Almost half (47%) of LGBTQ employees reported experiencing discrimination or harassment at work (including being fired, not hired, not promoted, or being verbally, physically, or sexually harassed) because of their sexual orientation or gender identity during their lifetime. Notably, across all six primary measures of lifetime experiences of discrimination and harassment, TNB employees reported higher rates than cisgender employees, people of color reported higher rates than White employees, and those who were out reported higher rates than those who were out to no one in the workplace.

This discrimination and harassment are ongoing: 17% of LGBTQ employees reported that they experienced discrimination or harassment within the past year. TNB employees were more than twice as likely as cisgender LGBQ employees to report experiencing discrimination (22% vs. 9%) or harassment (26% vs. 10%) in the past year. LGBTQ employees of color were also approximately twice as likely to experience discrimination (15% vs 7%) and harassment (16% vs. 9%) in the past year compared to White LGBTQ employees.

Many employees also reported engaging in behaviors to avoid discrimination and harassment, including hiding their LGBTQ identity and changing their physical appearance. Nearly half (46%) of LGBTQ employees said that they are not open about being LGBTQ to their current supervisor, and one-fifth (21%) are not out to any of their coworkers. LGBTQ employees who were out to at least a few coworkers and/or their supervisor were three times more likely to report experiencing discrimination (39% vs. 12%) and more than twice as likely to report harassment (42% vs. 17%) than those who were not out to anyone at work. LGBTQ employees who were out to at least someone in the workplace were four times more likely to have experienced discrimination in the past year (12% vs 3%).

More than half of LGBTQ employees (58%) reported engaging in covering behaviors at their current job to avoid harassment or discrimination related to sexual orientation or gender identity. Some employees even left their jobs or considered leaving because of unfair treatment. One-third (33%) reported that they had left a job at some point in their lives because of how their employer treated them based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Key Findings

• More than half of TNB employees (55%) reported experiencing discrimination compared to 31% of cisgender LGBQ employees.
• LGBTQ employees of color (42%) were more likely to report experiencing discrimination than White employees (27%).
• More than half of TNB employees (57%) reported at least one form of harassment compared to about one-third of cisgender LGBQ employees (35%).
• Unfair Treatment: About one-third of LGBTQ employees (35%) reported being treated unfairly at work because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. More than half of TNB employees (55%) reported being treated unfairly compared to one-third of cisgender employees (33%).
• Eleven percent of LGBTQ employees said they experienced discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity within the past year, and 12% experienced harassment within the past year.
• TNB employees and LGBTQ employees of color were more likely to experience recent discrimination and harassment than cisgender LGBQ employees and White LGBTQ employees. TNB employees were more than twice as likely as cisgender LGBQ employees to report experiencing discrimination (22% vs. 9%) or harassment (26% vs. 10%) in the past year. Similarly, LGBTQ employees of color were more likely to experience discrimination (15% vs 7%) and harassment (16% vs. 9%) in the past year compared to White LGBTQ employees.
• More than half of LGBTQ employees (57%) reported hearing negative comments at work within the past five years; over one-third (36%) reported hearing negative comments within the past year.
• Both TNB employees (32%) and LGBTQ employees of color (29% vs. 20%) were more likely to report one or more adverse workplace experiences related to their sexual orientation or gender identity at their current job compared to cisgender LGBQ employees (23%) and White LGBTQ employees (20%).
• LGBTQ employees who were out to at least a few coworkers and/or their supervisor were three times as likely to report experiencing discrimination (39% vs. 12%) and more than twice as likely to report harassment (42% vs. 17%) because of their sexual orientation or gender identity as LGBTQ employees who were not out to anyone at work.
• LGBTQ employees who were out to at least some coworkers and/or their supervisor were four times more likely to have experienced discrimination in the past year than employees who were not out (12% vs 3%).
• TNB employees were twice as likely as cisgender LGBQ employees to report changing their voice or mannerisms (40% vs. 20%); their physical appearance (36% vs. 17%); how they dress at work (36% vs. 17%); and where, when, or how frequently they used a bathroom (27% vs 10%, respectively).
• TNB employees were four times as likely to report that they left a job (20% vs. 5%) within the past year due to personal treatment compared to cisgender LGBQ employees. TNB employees were also more likely to report that they have considered leaving their current jobs due to an unsupportive environment for LGBTQ people compared to cisgender employees (24% vs. 13%).
• Nine percent of LGBTQ employees of color reported having left a job in the past year due to personal treatment compared to 5% of White LGBTQ employees. LGBTQ employees of color were also more likely to have considered leaving their current jobs due to an unsupportive environment for LGBTQ people than White LGBTQ employees (18% vs. 11%).

Download the full report

Related Publications

Lgbt discrimination, subnational public policy, and law in the united states, title vii cases: amicus briefs, legal protections for lgbt people after bostock v. clayton county.

Kerith J. Conron & Shoshana K. Goldberg, Williams Inst., LGBT People in the US Not Protected by State NonDiscrimination Statutes 1 (2020) , https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-nondiscrimination-statutes.

See, e.g. , Equality Act, Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Comm., 117th Cong. (2021) (Statement of M.V. Lee Badgett), https:// williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Testimony-Equality-Act-LGBT-Employment-Mar-2021.pdf .

Brad Sears et al., Williams Inst., LGBT People’s Experiences of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment (2021), https:// williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Workplace-Discrimination-Sep-2021.pdf .

Bostock v. Clayton Cty, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).

M.V. Lee Badgett et al., Williams Inst., The Business Impact of LGBT-Supportive Workplace Policies (2013), https:// williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/impact-lgbt-supportive-workplaces/ .

Sears et al., supra note 3.

" * " indicates required fields

Discrimination

Explore our resources to gain informative insights into discrimination in the workplace.

Organisations that have a positive and inclusive approach towards their employees can reap many benefits. These benefits include the ability to tap into different perspectives and skills which can boost innovation and performance.

For example, at the CIPD, we are committed to the removal of age discrimination in organisations. Our research demonstrates that age-diverse teams can benefit both employees and their organisations.

Explore our range of resources addressing discrimination in the workplace, including factsheets and case law cases.

Regularly-updated factsheets provide overviews and information on a topic

Employment law

Practical resources to help you address employment law issues at work, and keep up with recent and pending legislation.

Research and analysis by experts from CIPD and partner organisations

Thought leadership

Insight and foresight from our experts in people and the world of work

Listen to episodes from our podcast series on a range of topical workplace, HR and L&D issues.

Webinar recordings providing expert guidance

Bitesize research

Your regular overview of current research, inspiring insights and cutting-edge ideas in bitesize

CIPD Viewpoints

Our collected point of view on the key issues impacting work, from the perspective of employers and policy makers.

Policy engagements

Our calls for action.

We offer a range of evidence-based courses tauilored to suit you and your needs. Our Essential Insights courses are free as part of the CIPD membership.

This thought-provoking course has been developed by Sukh Pabial, one of CIPD’s experienced Associates. People practitioners and professionals will learn how to approach and build an evidence-based organisational strategy for inclusion and diversity. Transferring their learning into day-to-day work, they will play a role in driving action for workplace behaviours that support and reinforce I&D standards.

Gain the fundamentals of employment law so you can confidently handle common employment issues that arise on a day-to-day basis.

Build your confidence by learning the fundamentals of HR and discover the importance of UK employment law, including contractual and HR policy issues.

Develop the skillset to become an employment law practitioner by learning the techniques to resolve workplace legal issues that arise during the employment journey, through a legal and compliant lens.

Visit our Learning shop

Choose from our extensive range of topics and learning options 

Related topics

CIPD Update

Get the latest insights  on the world of work. CIPD Update includes UK and global news and events.

You can also sign up for updates from our teams in Ireland , Asia , and the Middle East .

You can unsubscribe or change your marketing preferences at any time by visiting our Marketing Preference Centre . By submitting this form you confirm that you have read our  privacy policy  and  terms and conditions .

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Language selector, ohrc social links.

Main Navigation

• The Ontario Human Rights Code
• The Human Rights System
• The Ontario Human Rights Commission
• The Human Rights Legal Support Centre
• The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
• Frequently asked questions
• Family and marital status
• Gender identity and gender expression
• Race and related grounds
• Receipt of public assistance
• Record of offences
• Sexual orientation
• Goods, services and facilities
• Membership in vocational associations and trade unions
• Teaching human rights in Ontario
• Public education requests
• The OHRC at 60
• Backgrounders and research
• Brochures, fact sheets and guides
• Papers and reports
• Policies and guidelines
• Submissions

You are here

Case study 1: darlene, page controls, page content.

As part of a government program, Darlene, a grade 12 graduate, got a job with a local garden nursery. She was to help Mr. M., the owner, tend plants and shrubs, place orders and serve customers.

Mr. M's first review of Darlene's work showed that she was performing all her job duties exceedingly well. It was obvious that Darlene liked the work.

Over the next three months, Mr. M's behaviour toward Darlene began to change. As they worked, he would often put his hands on her shoulders and hips or lean over closer to her. At these times, she would quickly draw away from him. He then began to make offhand remarks about how he was sick of his wife and that he needed “satisfaction” from another woman.

Darlene did not encourage the comments or actions, nor did she say anything against them. However, she was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the situation and tried to avoid the owner as much as possible. One day, Mr. M. asked her for a kiss. When she refused, he said “I know what's wrong with you. You're scared you're going to like it.”  A few days later, Mr. M. suggested that she come to his apartment to have sex with him. Darlene firmly refused, saying that she was seriously involved with her boyfriend. On several other occasions, the owner tried to get Darlene to come to his apartment.

In June, Mr. M. terminated Darlene's employment, saying he had no work for her, even though June is the busiest month of the year for the nursery.

Group discussion questions

• Did the nursery owner violate the  Human Rights Code ? If so, how?
• When Darlene first became uncomfortable with the nursery owner's  behaviour, why wouldn't she have said something?
• In this situation, would Darlene have had to say anything to the nursery  owner for him to know that he might be violating the  Code ?
• Is Darlene's termination a factor when assessing if her rights were violated?

Case study 2: Paramvir

In response to increased violence in its schools, a local school board adopted a policy prohibiting carrying weapons on school grounds. The following spring, the school administration learned that Paramvir, a Khalsa Sikh, was wearing a kirpan in school. The school wanted to implement its “no weapons” policy.

Of the estimated 250,000 Sikhs living in Canada at the time, more than 10% are Khalsa Sikhs—they have gone through the Amrit ceremony, symbolizing spiritual commitment. One of the duties of the Khalsa Sikh is to carry, at all times on his or her person, a kirpan, an article of faith symbolizing a spiritual commitment to law and morality, justice and order. A kirpan is a steel knife, encased and secured in a sheath, and generally worn out of sight under normal clothing.

After prolonged discussions with Paramvir's family and Sikh organizations, the school board amended its weapons policy to include kirpans. It forbade Sikh students to wear the kirpan to school—they could only wear a symbolic representation of the kirpan, provided it did not involve a metal blade that could be used as a weapon.

A Sikh teacher took the case to the Tribunal. At the hearing, it was argued that Sikh religious practices dictate that the kirpan must be made of iron or steel and worn at all times, otherwise the Khalsa would break their holy vows. It was shown that, while the kirpan has the appearance of a weapon, it has never been used in Canada as a weapon. Furthermore, it was argued that other school boards did not have a policy restricting kirpans. 

The school board argued that:

• Education was not a service covered by the Ontario  Human Rights Code  but was instead under the jurisdiction of the  Education Act
• The kirpan posed a risk as it looked like, and could be used as, a weapon
• Others could perceive the kirpan as an invitation to violence.
• Does the  Code  prevail, or have “primacy,” over the  Education Act ?
• Did the weapons policy discriminate against Khalsa Sikhs? How?
• Was the policy reasonable? Suggest some ways the school board  could accommodate Khalsa Sikhs without undue hardship – for example,  posing a safety risk?

Case study 3: Danté

After months of searching for a weekend job, Danté, who is Black, finally got an interview with the owner of a busy car wash and gas station. The owner seemed reluctant to hire him, but Danté managed to win him over. The owner gave him the job, saying that he would be working on a weekend shift with seven other young men, all students from the local area. The shift manager would train him on the car wash equipment.

On Danté's first day, the shift manager gave him only a few minutes of instruction on the equipment. Danté watched what the other men were doing, but when he asked questions, they were not very helpful.

Over the next few weekends, Danté concentrated on his work but because of certain events, he increasingly began to stay by himself. A few co-workers invited him to join their little group for lunch or breaks, but others consistently cracked ethnic and racial jokes, often within hearing of the shift manager. One day Danté overheard the manager say that Black people were responsible for increased violence in the community. This statement encouraged some co-workers, who had previously eaten lunch with Danté, to tell a couple of jokes about Black people. When they glanced at him as they told their jokes, he got up and walked away.

One busy Saturday afternoon, a whole section of the car wash equipment broke down because someone had allowed the system to become overheated. Danté had worked on that section until his break, when a co-worker took over. The system had broken down at some point after that.

The shift manager was furious and accused Danté of negligence. Danté replied that he believed the system was fine when he left for his break. Although Danté insisted that the equipment failure was not his fault, the shift manager fired him. Dante believed he was discriminated against because he is Black, while his co-workers and managers are White.

• Did the shift manager have good reason for firing Danté? Why?
• What factors would a human rights tribunal take into consideration?

Case study 4: Tammy

By age 11, Tammy had bowled for five years in the local recreation league. She and several others qualified to enter a province-wide competition sponsored by the Youth Bowling Council.

Tammy has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, but she has some movement and coordination. So she could bowl, her father built a wooden ramp, the top of which rests in Tammy's lap. She lines up the ramp towards the bowling pins and lets the ball roll down the ramp.

Just before the competition, the Council ruled that Tammy was ineligible to take part. While the Council's rules allowed persons with disabilities to use special equipment to assist them in recreational bowling (provided the equipment did not add force or speed to the ball), they prohibited the use of such equipment in competitions.

The Tribunal and later the Supreme Court of Ontario heard Tammy’s application. The Youth Bowling Council argued that it had not violated her rights under the  Code , because Tammy wasn’t capable of the essential requirement of bowling—manually releasing the ball. The Council also contended that the use of special devices would make competition between the bowlers unfair, because the skills assessed would not be common to all competitors.

Tammy's lawyers argued that Tammy was bowling—she was using the ball to knock down pins. Also, the Youth Bowling Council had a duty to accommodate her under the  Code  by allowing her to use the ramp. Speed and accuracy tests showed that Tammy did not gain any advantage over other bowlers. Her ball speed was too low for maximum results and her accuracy no better than average.

• Could Tammy perform the essential requirement of bowling? Should this  argument have been a factor in determining whether a violation occurred?
• Should the Council have to accommodate Tammy (for example, should they  allow her to bowl in competitions with the ramp)?
• Would the Council experience undue hardship if it accommodated her in competitions? Would it change the sport too much? Give your reasons.

Case study 5: Kyle

Kyle is a young man who went to The Barking Frog, a bar in London, Ontario. He went on a “Ladies” Night,” when women are charged a lower cover charge than men. Bars across Ontario (and indeed across Canada and parts of the United States) routinely hold what are commonly called ladies’ nights, where women are charged a lower cover charge or no cover charge to enter the bar or are given discounts on their drinks. This practice has been common in Ontario and elsewhere for decades.

Kyle went to The Barking Frog, where the doorman told him the cover charge was $20 for the men but only $10 for the women in the group. Kyle was upset and was unwilling to pay the $20, so he did not enter the bar.

Kyle launched a human rights complaint claiming the different cover charges amounted to discrimination based on the ground of sex.

• Did Kyle face discrimination? If so, what type?
• What factors would be taken into account to determine if this differential  treatment violated the  Code ?
• How is substantive equality different from formal equality?

Case study 6: Rita

Rita and her family moved to the city from a remote community in the middle of the school year. Within a week, Rita was registered at the local high school and began attending classes. She travelled to and from school by school bus.

After two weeks at the new school, Rita was just beginning to settle into her classes. However, she was somewhat nervous about her history course. After her first class, the teacher made it clear that Rita had a lot of “catching up” to do, if she were to pass the course.

The following week, some students gave a presentation on Columbus' voyage in 1492 to the “New World.” There was lively discussion, and readings and prints were circulated depicting Columbus' arrival in various territories. There were several references made to “Indians and savages” that the colonists “had to defeat” to settle the New World.

As a member of the Cree Band, Rita was dismayed by the way the teacher portrayed Aboriginal persons in the presentation. She approached her teacher before class the next day to discuss the issue. As the class began, the teacher announced that Rita had concerns with the Columbus presentation. She then turned to Rita and asked her to give her version of the “Columbus discovery” from an Aboriginal point of view.

Caught off guard, Rita haltingly made several points, and then sat down quickly when several of the students began to snicker. Later that day on the bus ride home, some of the other students jeered at her, saying if she didn't like history the way it was taught, then she should drop out. She turned away and ignored them. The next day, the jeering continued in the hallway. When she went to her locker at lunch, someone had scrawled the words “gone hunting” on her locker door. Again, she ignored the curious students around her.

Rita told her parents about the incidents. They called the principal, who said she would give “hell” to the offenders. She also suggested that Rita should make more of an effort to fit in and get along with others.

• How should the teacher have handled Rita's concern over the  Columbus presentation?
• Should the principal deal with the situation in a different way?

Case study 7: Cindy

Cindy, 19, applied for a job at a nursing home as a nursing aide. She had previously worked part-time as a kindergarten teacher's aide and had also cared for children with mental and physical disabilities during her high school years. In her initial interview, the assistant administrator told Cindy she was an ideal candidate and that she probably would be hired.

She was given a pre-employment medical examination for her family doctor to complete. He confirmed that she could meet the requirement of being able to lift patients.

At a second meeting, the interviewer reviewed the completed medical form and noticed Cindy's hand. During the initial interview, the assistant administrator had not observed her left hand, on which the index, middle and ring fingers were much shorter than those on most hands. Following this, the interviewer and another nursing director spent much time discussing Cindy's disability and the job requirements. Even though they both really wanted to hire Cindy, they didn’t think she would be able to cope with the gripping or clasping that is needed to lift patients.

Although Cindy said she could perform the duties and had done similar tasks in her previous job with children with disabilities, she was not hired.

• Did the interviewer have reasonable grounds to believe that Cindy  could not do the job?
• On what basis did the interviewers assess that Cindy could not meet  a  bona fide  job requirement?
• What do you think the interviewer and the nursing director should have  decided? What are your reasons?

Case study 8: Maria

When Maria began working for the packaging company in 2003, her first name was Tony. She was hired as a general labourer on August 24, 2003. In 2008, she was accepted in the gender identity clinic and began transition from living as a man to living as a woman. She started the process of sex reassignment and developed female breasts as a result of hormone treatments. Maria says that she was harassed, subjected to a poisoned work environment and dismissed – all violations of the  Human Rights Code .

Maria said that Gerry, a lead hand and machine operator, played a central role in the harassment and the incident that led to her dismissal. The packing company said the allegations never happened. The company argued that it treated the applicant appropriately, considering her a man and treating her like other men until it received medical or legal documentation that she was a woman. They say they fired her because of her attitude and being involved in workplace conflicts that were her fault, as well as insubordination.

• In what ways do you think Maria might have experienced discrimination  in her employment?
• What reasons do you think Maria's supervisor would give for firing her?  What do you think of these reasons?
• What remedy do you think Maria should receive because she was  discriminated against?

Case study 9: Tawney

Tawney worked as a forest firefighter for the Province of British Columbia and was a member of the Initial Attack Forest Firefighting crew for a small area in the forests of BC. The crew’s job was to attack and suppress forest fires while they were small and could be easily contained. Her supervisors found her work satisfactory and had no reason to question her continuing ability to do the work safely and effectively.

After she had been successfully doing this job for three years, the government adopted a new series of fitness tests for forest firefighters. The tests were developed in response to a Coroner’s Inquest Report that recommended that only physically fit employees be assigned as front-line forest firefighters for safety reasons. The tests required that forest firefighters weigh less than 200 lbs. (with their equipment) and complete a run, an upright rowing exercise, and a pump carrying/hose dragging exercise within stipulated times.

The running test was designed to test the forest firefighters’ aerobic fitness. Subjects were required to run 2.5 kilometres in 11 minutes. After four attempts, Tawney failed to meet the aerobic standard, running the distance in 11 minutes and 49.4 seconds instead of the required 11 minutes. As a result, she was laid off.

Stating that the test unfairly discriminated against women, Tawney’s union brought a grievance on her behalf.

• ​ What do you think about having different standards for men and women?
• Do you think the test was a fair way of measuring a firefighter’s ability  to do the job?
• If Tawney was passed, even though her running time was below what  was required, is she being given preferential treatment over men?

Case study 10: Réjeanne

Based on  Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Montreal (City); Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Boisbriand (City) , [1999] 1 SCR 381 — 1999-02-24 Supreme Court of Canada — Canada (Federal)  http://canlii.ca/t/1fqmp

Réjeanne lived in Montreal. Her career goal was to become a horticulturalist. She had successfully passed a college course and completed an apprenticeship as a gardener with the city’s Botanical Gardens. When a suitable opening came up to work as a horticulturalist with the city, she immediately sent in her application.

Réjeanne was fully qualified for the position and was invited for an interview. She successfully passed the interview. However, she also had to undergo a physical check-up to confirm her suitability for the job. This check-up indicated she had a slight curvature of the spine called  scoliosis . Réjeanne was surprised to learn this, as she had never experienced any symptoms from this relatively common condition. In fact, she had never experienced any pain, nor had she suffered any limitation on her because of her condition. A later evaluation showed that Réjeanne was able to perform all the duties of a gardener-horticulturalist in complete safety to herself and others, and that there was no need to limit her duties.

When it became aware of Réjeanne’s condition, the city decided to hire another candidate who it thought would be less of a risk for back problems and therefore unlikely to incur increased health care costs later on. The city rationalized its decision saying that it had the right and even the responsibility to employ individuals who would pose the least potential cost to taxpayers.

Believing the city had rejected her application because of a handicap, Réjeanne made a complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal. Réjeanne alleged that the city acted in a discriminatory way that deprived her of unemployment insurance benefits, caused her a high level of stress and deeply humiliated her. The city responded that because Réjeanne had no functional limitations, it could not be said that she had a disability under Quebec’s  Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms .

• Why do you think that the city should or should not have hired Réjeanne?
• If it is possible that Réjeanne will develop back problems, do you think that  the city did the right thing by not hiring her?
• Do you think society’s view towards persons with disabilities has a positive  or negative impact on the barriers they face?

Case study 11: Alia and Ahmed

There are many people in Ontario who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing. Some people may use sign language as their first language or preferred means of communication, and their inability in English will seriously impede their ability to communicate unless aided by interpretation. For these Ontarians, effective communication and getting fair access to services and employment is very hard.

Alia and Ahmed are parents who were both born deaf. They were expecting twins and would usually provide their own sign language interpreters for their medical visits. Unless an interpreter was present, communicating information was often frustrating for them. At the same time, any miscommunication about medical information could be dangerous.

Alia went into labour eight months into her pregnancy. She and her husband found themselves at the hospital without the aid of an interpreter. Neither the attending doctor nor the nurses could effectively communicate with the parents, who found this isolation difficult and frightening. After the babies were born, they were immediately taken away from the delivery room and put under observation in another area of the hospital. One nurse wrote on a piece of paper that the children were “fine.” Otherwise, no one gave any details about the twins’ condition to either Alia or Ahmed.

In their human rights complaint, Alia and Ahmed alleged that the hospital was providing unequal services because it did not accommodate their needs as deaf persons. The hospital replied that it was too hard to bring in interpreters on such short notice, and that it was too expensive to keep interpreters on call 24 hours a day.

• How would you feel if you were in the same situation as Alia or Ahmed?
• Whose responsibility is it to provide sign language interpreters in public  service sectors?
• How would this claim be covered under the  Code ?
• Do you think it’s unreasonable for deaf people to expect interpreters  to be available in emergency situations? What about in other non- emergency situations?

Case study 12: Marc

Marc is a gay 17-year-old student attending a publicly-funded Catholic high school. He wishes to go to the prom with a same-sex date. The prom is being held at a rental hall off school property.

The school principal and the Catholic School Board have said no on the grounds that this would be endorsing conduct contrary to the church’s teachings. Marc believes that this is a violation of his human rights. He is considering seeking a court injunction because the prom is only weeks away.

• What ground and social area does Marc’s application fall under?
• What competing rights are involved here? 

Book Prev / Next Navigation

I Was a Manager in an Ageist Workplace

Lessons on how to lead when stereotypes run rampant. by Nicole D. Smith

Summary .   

Ageism is alive and well in the workplace. In fact, studies show almost 65% of workers say they have experienced age-based discrimination. But even though it’s common, leaders can recognize and combat ageism to make organizations equitable, supportive, and inclusive. In this article, one manager shares her experience of working in an ageist culture and learning to overcome bias against age.

A few years back, I decided to chat with one of my team members, a man in his late fifties. I had recently started a new position as a manager — was just a few weeks on the job — and I wanted to see how people were adjusting to the change.

Partner Center

HR Daily Advisor

Practical HR Tips, News & Advice. Updated Daily.

Diversity & Inclusion

Case study: employee challenges dei training video—but neglects to watch it.

Updated: Sep 13, 2024

Rebel Without a Cause

Biggest loser.

• He engaged in protected activity.
• He suffered an adverse employment action.
• A causal link existed between the protected activity and the adverse action.

Back to School

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.