Why Discrimination is Hard to See at the Individual Level

Readers' comments in response to the Ellen Pao vs. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers verdict, such as those in the New York Times, made me realize how little the general public seems to understand about discrimination and why it is so difficult to see and prove at the individual level. I posted a comment and decided to flesh it out a bit more here.

First, discrimination can be rather subtle these days, especially in contexts where people generally know better than to make overtly sexist comments. This means that discrimination can take awhile to catch on to, as any particular incident might seem too small to warrant a complaint, or would make one seem overly sensitive or paranoid for pointing it out.1

Second, by the time an individual catches on or has had enough -- often when it culminates in being passed over for promotion or a decision to quit -- the treatment is likely to have had the effect of making the individual seem unvaluable and unlikeable to others in the organization. Self confidence and performance, social relationships and reputation, and mental health suffer as a result of even mild forms of mistreatment over time, just as a drip of water on the forehead is irritating but, repeated over time, can drive victims insane. Once a case has been brought to trial, defendants may be able to successfully play the "personality" card and claim the plaintiff is an individual failure and/or villain.

Finally, every individual is different, so defendants can argue the plaintiff was unique in some way, and that those uniquenesses motivated her treatment, not her sex. She was going through a personal crisis; she wasn't a "team player;" she was unpleasant and difficult; her performance was mediocre. Indeed, it can be difficult to tell if such claims are true or are themselves evidence of discrimination. Personal relationships break down when someone endures stress over a prolonged period of time, it's hard to be a team player when one is left out of the loop, and men with similar personalities and mediocre performance get promoted where women do not.

Discrimination is much easier to see, and to prove, when we zoom out and look at patterns.2 A lot of research, including my own, has zoomed out and systematically compared men's and women's experiences in the workplace and controlled for confounding variables like education, experience, work hours, performance, ambition, family status, and personality. This research reveals double standards that consistently disadvantage women at work (and men at home, but that's a post for another day).3 Some studies show no overall sex difference in, say, experiences of gender harassment, but once sex is combined with personality, parenthood, or caregiving, double standards jump out and one can see how women are penalized for the same things that are lauded in men.

Until the public becomes more educated and aware of this, these forms of subtle discrimination are likely to go unnoticed, and trial by jury is unlikely to result in findings for an individual plaintiff. Class action lawsuits may be required to raise awareness and bring about change.

_________________________________________

1 Examples abound, from not inviting female colleagues to social events where information and gossip is exchanged, to calling a woman by her first name but a man by his last, to asking women how their families are doing but talking "shop" with men, to expecting a hug from a woman but a handshake from a man, to describing a woman as "abrasive" and a man as "leaderly" for forcefully expressing their opinions.

2 For example, men comprise 94% of venture capitalists, 95% of Fortune 1000 CEOs, 84% of those employed in computer programming, and 70% of those employed by tech’s big four (Apple, Google, Facebook and Twitter). Women continue to earn 20 cents less than men on the dollar (based on median usual weekly earnings of full-time workers), and are paid and promoted less than men in the same occupations.

3 For example:

• If a male candidate has more education and a female candidate has more experience, people choose the man and say education is more important; switch their qualifications and people choose the man and say experience is more important. People are unaware of this bias and strongly believe their decisions were based on merit.
• Assertive women are significantly more likely than their less assertive counterparts to be "put in place" with demeaning comments and sexual harassment at work. Assertive men are treated with more respect than their less assertive counterparts.
• Women with children are assumed to be less competent than women without children and than men, and are offered significantly less pay and seen as significantly less promotable, even with identical hours, career ambitions, and levels of performance. Men tend to experience positive career outcomes as a result of becoming a parent (unless they're active caregivers).