The Role of Law and Myth in Creating a Workplace that 'Looks Like America'

Susan Bisom-Rapp
{"title":"The Role of Law and Myth in Creating a Workplace that 'Looks Like America'","authors":"Susan Bisom-Rapp","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3924718","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Equal employment opportunity (EEO) law has played a poor role in incentivizing effective diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and harassment prevention programming. In litigation and investigation, too many judges and regulators credit employers for maintaining policies and programs rather than requiring that employers embrace efforts that work. Likewise, many employers and consultants fail to consider the organizational effects created by DEI and harassment programming. Willful blindness prevents the admission that some policies and programming, although not all, harm those most in need of protection. This approach has resulted in two problems. One is a doctrinal dilemma because important presumptions embedded in anti-discrimination law are tethered to employer practices, many of which do not promote EEO. Simultaneously, society faces an organizational predicament because employer practices are driven by unexamined myths about how to achieve bias and harassment-free environments. Neo-institutional theory explains how this form-over-substance approach to EEO law and practice began and has evolved. This article argues that favorable conditions exist for a shift from a cosmetic to an evidence-based approach to legal compliance. Three developments mark the way forward: 1) a pathbreaking Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) report; 2) the EEOC’s call for better research on DEI and harassment prevention program efficacy; and 3) new social science research on those organizational efforts most likely to succeed and those most likely to prompt backlash. To facilitate evidence-based EEO compliance, this article advocates changes in liability standards. Also recommended is the creation of a supervised research safe harbor for employers willing to work with researchers and regulators to assess and continuously improve their DEI and harassment prevention efforts. Finally, the article suggests lawyers more frequently employ Brandeis briefs in litigation to place social science research directly in front of jurists. Solving the twin problems wrought by cosmetic compliance requires taking seriously the findings of social scientists. An evidence-based approach to DEI and harassment prevention would assist in restoring the promise of EEO law to create healthy, diverse, and bias free American workplaces.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3924718","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Equal employment opportunity (EEO) law has played a poor role in incentivizing effective diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and harassment prevention programming. In litigation and investigation, too many judges and regulators credit employers for maintaining policies and programs rather than requiring that employers embrace efforts that work. Likewise, many employers and consultants fail to consider the organizational effects created by DEI and harassment programming. Willful blindness prevents the admission that some policies and programming, although not all, harm those most in need of protection. This approach has resulted in two problems. One is a doctrinal dilemma because important presumptions embedded in anti-discrimination law are tethered to employer practices, many of which do not promote EEO. Simultaneously, society faces an organizational predicament because employer practices are driven by unexamined myths about how to achieve bias and harassment-free environments. Neo-institutional theory explains how this form-over-substance approach to EEO law and practice began and has evolved. This article argues that favorable conditions exist for a shift from a cosmetic to an evidence-based approach to legal compliance. Three developments mark the way forward: 1) a pathbreaking Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) report; 2) the EEOC’s call for better research on DEI and harassment prevention program efficacy; and 3) new social science research on those organizational efforts most likely to succeed and those most likely to prompt backlash. To facilitate evidence-based EEO compliance, this article advocates changes in liability standards. Also recommended is the creation of a supervised research safe harbor for employers willing to work with researchers and regulators to assess and continuously improve their DEI and harassment prevention efforts. Finally, the article suggests lawyers more frequently employ Brandeis briefs in litigation to place social science research directly in front of jurists. Solving the twin problems wrought by cosmetic compliance requires taking seriously the findings of social scientists. An evidence-based approach to DEI and harassment prevention would assist in restoring the promise of EEO law to create healthy, diverse, and bias free American workplaces.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法律和神话在创造一个“看起来像美国”的工作场所中的作用
平等就业机会法(EEO)在激励有效的多元化、公平和包容(DEI)和骚扰预防规划方面发挥了较差的作用。在诉讼和调查中,太多的法官和监管机构赞扬雇主维持政策和项目,而不是要求雇主接受有效的努力。同样,许多雇主和顾问没有考虑到DEI和骚扰程序所产生的组织效应。故意视而不见阻止人们承认一些政策和规划,尽管不是全部,伤害了那些最需要保护的人。这种方法导致了两个问题。一个是理论上的困境,因为反歧视法中嵌入的重要假设与雇主的做法有关,其中许多做法并不提倡平等就业机会。与此同时,社会面临着组织困境,因为雇主的做法是由关于如何实现无偏见和无骚扰环境的未经检验的神话所驱动的。新制度理论解释了这种形式重于实质的平等就业机会法律和实践方法是如何开始和演变的。本文认为,有利的条件是存在的转变,从一个表面的循证方法,以法律合规。三项发展标志着前进的道路:1)一份开创性的平等就业机会委员会(EEOC)报告;2)平等就业机会委员会呼吁加强对DEI和骚扰预防项目效果的研究;3)对那些最有可能成功和最有可能引发反弹的组织努力进行新的社会科学研究。为了促进基于证据的平等就业机会遵守,本文主张改变责任标准。还建议建立一个受监督的研究安全港,供愿意与研究人员和监管机构合作的雇主评估并不断改进其DEI和骚扰预防工作。最后,文章建议律师在诉讼中更频繁地使用布兰代斯简报,将社会科学研究直接摆在法学家面前。要解决因遵守化妆品规定而造成的双重问题,需要认真对待社会科学家的发现。以证据为基础的就业机会和骚扰预防方法将有助于恢复平等就业机会法的承诺,创造健康、多样化和无偏见的美国工作场所。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
Intersectional discrimination and EU law: Time to revisit Parris Editorial - September 2024 The prohibition of discrimination and the workers’ right to maternity or paternity leave in light of the drafting history of Article 40 of the Constitution of Uganda and sections 56 and 57 of the Employment Act On the margins of refuge: Queer Syrian refugees and the politics of belonging and mobility in post-2019 Lebanon Legal status of the self-employed person in the field of social protection in Ukraine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1