Workplace Inequities: Exploring the Challenges of Sex-based Discrimination in the United States

Abstract

Sex-based discrimination continues to negatively impact employees despite decades attempting to mitigate it within the United States. It is illegal to make employment decisions based on protected characteristics, including race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information. There have been great strides to ensure gender equity within the workplace; however, the issue is complex and rooted in antiquated cultural norms. This dissertation examined sex-based discrimination through three interconnected studies that analyzed reporting behaviors, complaint patterns, and legal recourse. In the first study, literature on sex-based harassment reporting published between 2006 - 2023 was reviewed to uncover trends in research methods, key barriers to reporting, and potential remedies to underreporting. Findings revealed numerous barriers that prevented individuals from reporting harassment, including fear of retaliation, insufficient or ambiguous policies, societal norms, and intrapersonal conflict. The remedies in this body of research were largely focused on legal reform. The second study employed a quantitative analysis of Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act data to expose patterns in sex-based discrimination complaints from 2006 - 2023. Data from the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) FedScope web tool and Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) were also leveraged to examine the relationship between workforce demographics, discrimination complaint rates, and fear of retaliation within seven federal agencies. The results suggested a negative correlation between the percentage of male employees and the rate of complaints at these agencies. These findings also indicated there are fewer complaints filed when employees do not fear reprisal. These data did not reveal any clear trends when comparing the male-dominated agencies to the female-dominated agencies. The final study analyzed two landmark class action lawsuits, Wal-Mart v. Dukes and Ellis v. Costco, to explore the evidentiary and legal standards that shape case outcomes. It highlighted organizational practices that create bias and challenges plaintiffs face when demonstrating systemic discrimination in a legal setting. The outcome of these cases created stricter criteria for class certification and enforcement gaps for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regarding subjective decision-making. Collectively, these three studies provided an analysis of the structural and procedural challenges that shape how sex-based discrimination is experienced, addressed, and adjudicated. By exploring sex-based discrimination through multiple lenses, this dissertation sought to enhance understanding of the issue and its systematic nature, provide practical solutions, and inform future research.