7

The signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 was the first step in the right direction deeming discrimination in employment regarding hiring, pay, and promotion of minorities and women illegal in the U.S. While this is a milestone in United States history, fast forward 56 years later and there are still wage differentials that could be at least partially explained by pure discrimination. While each subcategory of discrimination holds complexities of their own, we will examine the implications of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, beauty, ability, religion, and criminal record on wages and overall experience in the workplace. We have researched each of the aforementioned categories and have found evidence of possible wage discrimination in each one explored.

Gender

For centuries women have had to bear much of the weight on inequality in America, experiencing and accepting lower wages than their male counterparts since they have been permitted the right to make their own living. Unfortunately, this outdated mechanism is still persistently carried on in the United States, many times unbeknownst to the female employee. Some individuals have tried to cover up the wage gap as a hoax, claiming that it is propaganda used by women and leftists. While insulting and totalitarian-esque, these claims still make you wonder – are these individuals unable to fathom an environment where equal work does not receive equal pay? Or is there a deeper explanation, such as the systematic effort of employers across the nation to give well – dressed justifications as to why there may be wage differentials. Schaffer and Westenberg (2015) use U.S. Data sets combined from the 2015 revision of the Occupational Information Network (ONET) and the 2003 through 2015 March Current Population Surveys to analyze this issue.

“One explanation for the wage differentials between men and women today is paid jobs providing more time flexibility may appeal to workers who have primary responsibility as a caregiver for young children or for sick, handicapped, or elderly adults. However, in some jobs, workers who are given this flexibility may be less productive per hour than workers who commit to a fixed work schedule chosen by the employer. These two realities may lead employers to offer, and caregivers to accept, lower-paying jobs that come with more time flexibility” (Schaffer, Westenberg 225). Due to the fact that in the United States caregivers are disproportionately women, this methodology used by employers is one explanation for wage differentials. Although their argument is flawed; There is no substantial evidence that time flexibility has negative effects on productivity. Mas and Pallais (2017) use an experimental approach suggesting that the Time Flexibility Hypothesis can only explain a small part of the gender wage gap.

In an attempt to further examine the issue of wage differentials by gender, Patricia Cortes and Jessica Pan, using 2010 Census Data, were able to determine that occupation and industry constitute the largest portion of the explained component of the gender wage gap. A measurement used by the authors to support this hypothesis is known as the index of occupational segregation by sex, created by Duncan and Duncan (1955). The model is computed as

D = 0.5|Mj-Fj|

Where M (F) represents the fraction of all employed males and females that work in occupation j. It is noted by the authors that shifts in the index can be explained by two potential passages. “First, a decline in the segregation index could occur because of change in the sex composition within occupations, which occurs, for example, when women enter male-dominated occupations… Second, shifts in the occupation mix of the economy away from predominantly male or female occupations would cause a decline in the segregation index” (Gibbs; Blau, Brummund, and Liu 471). In other words, when we see homogeneous mixtures of men and women within occupations, we will see a decline in the segregation index. While it’s true that it has become commonplace to see examples of this such as female doctors and male nurses, the integration has not gotten to a place that would account for no wage differentials between men and women. There are still many sectors of occupation that are made up of mostly men or women, mostly found within the trades. For example, anytime you drive past a construction crew working on roads or buildings you will mainly see male-dominated employees. Whereas if you were to visit a nursery or daycare building, the employees there will be predominantly female. As Gibbs examines, a way to abolish wage differentials by gender is to see the filtering of men and women into these predominantly “one sex only” occupations. In conclusion, there is found to be substantial evidence of wage differentials as a result of discrimnation by gender.

Race

United States history holds a dark account of the abuse and widespread oppression of black individuals throughout the nation’s history, and though there have been laws and policies passed that have made huge strides towards equality, data reflects a disproportionate share of wealth when considering racial factors.

Strauss (1990) attempted to examine the implications of Civil Rights Laws and see whether the changes for equality were dramatic enough and still hold true today. It’s no surprise that today’s African American employees are still facing discrimination in the workplace, but a rather surprising find from Strauss is that employers who actively discriminate bear more costs than employers who do not.

“If the taste for discrimination is held by the employer, that cost will be the employer’s own disutility. If the employer itself lacks any antipathy to minorities, it will still incur an additional cost if its nonminority employees dislike minorities and demand additional wages (or show reduced productivity) when forced to work with minorities. Similarly, the employer will incur an additional cost if customers are less willing to do business with firms that have minority employees” (Strauss 1622) To expand on this idea, a result of prejudice throughout the entire workplace would make costs especially high for a firm. Furthermore, it would be most efficient for employers not to hold personal prejudices in addition to not hiring those who are presumed to be racist.

Strauss continues to expand on this theory saying “In each of these circumstances, the effect of the discrimination is to reduce the wages of minority employees compared to those of identical nonminority employees… By contrast, the effective cost of employing a nonminority is simply her wage, so the nonminority employee’s wage will equal her marginal product. It follows that, if a relevant actor has a taste for discrimination, a minority employee will receive a lower money wage than an otherwise indistinguishable nonminority employee” (Strauss 1622).

This conclusion drawn by Strauss is extremely valuable in understanding the costs of discrimination in the workplace. It’s not as simple as racist employers offering African American employees lower wages. It is a calculated cost based on the employer’s own disutility, but where the burden of bearing that cost should fall on the employer, they compensate for their costs by putting the burden on the African American employee in the form of lower wages. Another instance of wage discrimination by race is known as statistical discrimination. This occurs when information about an employee’s qualifications is often too costly to obtain. However, the race of an applicant can be easily established by the employer. Strauss concludes that “therefore, if a firm concludes that an employee’s race correlates with his or her qualifications, and if better information about the qualifications is too costly to discover, it will be rational, profit-maximizing behavior for the firm to offer lower wages to a minority employee than it would offer to a nonminority employee”. Strauss also notes that in a world with cost-free information, if there were two employees found to be identical, it would not be rational profit-maximizing behavior for the firm to offer them different wages.

A study by Mount and Bennet (2014) contains empirical evidence of wage differentials based on race. “Being White results in a significant upward shift of over $1,000 in one’s expected income. Therefore, one cannot reject the hypotheses that there is discrimination in the average incomes of Whites and non-Whites and that there is discrimination in the average incomes of males and females” (Mount 241). Furthermore, tangible evidence is provided by this study that suggests the race of an individual is statistically significant when considering income.

While both taste-based discrimination and statistical discrimination are both illegal under current law, employees of color still experience such discrimination. Similar to gender, right-wing individuals spew propaganda that there is no such thing as race-based wage discrimination, even further oppressing people of color and robbing them of the equity and equality that is so long overdue to them on behalf the American people.

Sexual Orientation

While gender and race are easily visualized by employers, sexual orientation can be a hidden trait, therefore, making it more difficult for employers to discriminate solely based on it. Oftentimes, discrimination based on sexual orientation begins with a self-identification made by the employee. There have been many pieces of literature on sexual orientation discrimination that report earning differentials for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals when compared to heterosexuals. But, the ratio between LGBT employees and the entire workforce is only between 3% and 12% in the U.S. Furthermore, a majority of employed LGBT individuals still remain in the closet, so it’s difficult to get accurate measures of how discrimination affects all LGBT individuals. Curley (2017) reports some significant finds regarding wage differentials based on sexual orientation. Curley uses updated General Social Survey data to investigate whether the income differentials found in previously published works have persisted in today’s society.

“Results for the years 2008–14 indicate that self-identification as an LGBT individual and/or same-sex sexual behavior is correlated with a lower income; however, not all the results are statistically significant. In addition, there is a statistically significant negative income differential of 32 percent for men who report having had a same-sex partner at some point but identify as straight/heterosexual” (Curley 120). To further explain Curley’s findings, LGBT people experience lower income, which is consistent with other, previous findings. What is more surprising is that men who have reported having a same-sex partner experienced a 32% negative differential in their wages even though they identify as heterosexual. This begs the question of why would self-identified heterosexual men still be receiving lower wages?

It is believed that there must be some aspect of profiling on behalf of the employer. This would be a conclusion drawn solely from if the employee’s appearance, mannerisms, speech, etc. align with stereotypical aspects of a homosexual individual.  For example, if the employer already has some preconceived idea that their employee is gay based on the way they behave, they will pay them lower wages even if the employee does not identify as homosexual.

As noted with other forms of discrimination, employers and employees will bear a cost for discrimination against LGBT employees. “According to one report (Poe, 1996), productivity losses caused by discrimination against and lesbian employees in the workplace equaled $1.4 billion in 1994. That figure represents a serious business outcome for organizations. With respect to workplace outcomes, Ragins and Cornwell (2001) pointed out that GLBT employees who experienced discriminatory treatment in the workplace demonstrated more negative job attitudes, felt reduced job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and had fewer career opportunities” (Ozeren 1206). Furthermore, employers bear an estimated cost of $1.4 billion for discrimination, while also causing a loss in productivity which will result in lost compensation for both the employer and employee.

While experiencing a loss of morale due to workplace discrimination, there is also evidence of wage discrimination for LGBT individuals. A finding from Harvard Business Review quotes   “Economists and management scholars have been crunching the numbers on this question for over 20 years, and until very recently, nearly all the studies have found an identical result: if you compare the earnings of two men with similar education profiles, years of experience, skills, and job responsibilities, gay men consistently earns less than straight men (between 5% and 10% less). The stability of this finding has been remarkable: it has been replicated across numerous datasets in several different countries (e.g., Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and time periods. It seemingly did not budge”(Carpenter 2).

While there has been social justice strides bringing equality to LGBT individuals, such as the legalization of gay marriage across all 50 states, people including employers still hold their own prejudices against LGBT people. Policy prevents employers from asking an individual’s sexual orientation upon hiring, but as time goes on in the workplace, coworkers learn about each other’s families and lives outside of the workplace, and for LGBT individuals this seemingly innocent act of workplace bonding subsequently invites discrimination from their peers and employers.

Age

Another type of discrimination present in the workplace is age discrimination. There are no laws in place regarding disciminaton against young people, because age can be a factor in deciding if one has the skillset to take on certain jobs. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act outlaws age discrimination for those aged 40 and older. There may be evidence of discrimination in the form of wage differentials in this age group. This gap also may exist due to reasons other than discrimination. One reason an older person may face a wage gap is because of the age when they obtained their degree. Another could be the fact that older people are more likely to have changed jobs in their lifetime than a younger person, meaning their skills may be outdated or not fit for the jobs they acquired later in life. A third reason could be that employers may think that someone who is older isn’t able to grasp new technological changes that have rapidly taken over many industries. In many academic journals, age discrimination in the form of wage differentials are explored.

One reason that could explain why there is a wage gap between older and younger individuals, is the result of the age someone is when they obtain their degree. The earlier someone gets their degree, the higher one could assume they will eventually be paid, since they will have more experience in their field. As someone gets older, the value of their degree diminishes. For example, if someone gets their undergraduate degree at 22 years old, one will assume that they now have the rest of their lives to gain experience and work their way up to a higher skill set, making them a more valuable employee. Whereas if someone obtains their undergraduate degree at age 60, they have much less time to gain experience and the skill set to possibly have a higher salary than the 22 year old. Although the 22 year old and the 60 year old both have the same level degree, the 22 year old, by the time they are 60, may have more to offer and a higher skill set than the 60 year old can gain in their lifetime. This idea can be challenged by the fact that the same 60 year old could have valuable experience from before they obtained their undergraduate degree.

Sam Allgood (2020) conducted a study using 9,000 faculty members throughout various different fields of study to examine if there is a relationship between the age in which one obtains their degree and their income. Allgood (2020) found that “Regression analysis reveals a negative relationship between age at time of degree and earnings.” (Allgood, 70). According to the author, there is overwhelming evidence that the older one obtains their degree, the lower their earned wages are. This again may be because of their diminishing value to an employer. A younger person with more experience, who obtained their degree earlier, may be more valuable to an employer, making their wages higher than their older counterpart. The authors found that “A male obtaining their degree at forty-five earns $15,500 less than a similar thirty-year-old. For females, this penalty is about $10,100.” (Allgood, 78). It’s interesting that one of the reasons that age discrimination exists in wage differentials is as a result of when an individual obtains a degree. This information may very well discourage someone from getting any form of a higher degree as they grow older. On the other hand, it may encourage young people to obtain the degrees they want now, as opposed to later on in life, so they don’t get discriminated against for getting their degrees at an older age. It’s clear that those who obtain their degree later on in life have less value to employers than those who get them early, which has an adverse affect on their wages.

Shapiro and Sandell (2001), found that there may be a loss in wages for older men based on the fact that older people are much more likely to have changed jobs at some point in their lifetime. In their study, they find that “Previous wages were almost four percent above subsequent wages, on average, reflecting (in large part) the greater stock of firm-specific human capital on the pre-displacement job.” (Shapiro, Sandell, 96). There is evidence in this study that older people are more likely to change jobs, and their firm-specific training from the previous job is no longer useful at their next occupation. This could be a reason why older people are more likely to earn lower wages than a younger person at the same job. This may not necessarily be age discrimination, but moreso a result of a lower skill set as opposed to others who may have stayed in one occupation for their whole lives. If someone changes jobs and doesn’t have the skill set needed for that job, the employer may also have to pay for training, which they may pay for in the form of lower wages.

There was also research done on different types of wage discrimination in Portugal where age and gender wage gaps were assessed. Although this is different from the United States, there is still a fundamental similarity in the studies. González, Santos, and Santos (2009) argued that “The discrimination coefficient (i.e. the penalty associated by employers with female wages) is higher amongst older workers than amongst younger ones.” (González, Santos, Santos, 274). There is evidence that there is a wage gap between older and younger people in the same jobs. However, there are many variables that could disrupt these studies and their validity.

There is evidence that a wage gap exists for older individuals. However, there needs to be more research done on whether or not this wage gap exists as a result of discrimination. There are so many different variables that go into researching discrimination based on age. An employer can claim that someone older is not getting paid as much because of their lack of firm specific skills. The only way that a study could work properly for age discrimination is to take people who recieved their degrees at the same times in life and are working in the same industry for their whole lives, where their skills are easily translated from one job to another, and compare their earned wages against those who are younger than them. Otherwise there are too many variables that are disrupting the study. There needs to be more research done on this topic.

Beauty

Another type of wage discrimination comes from beauty. Beauty is a very difficult variable to assess. Most would think it’s not possible to assess beauty as a qualitative variable. Everyone has heard the phrase “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, meaning beauty as a physical trait is subjective. The interesting part about beauty is that it can often be associated with age or physical ability as well. Many believe that the older someone gets, the less attractive they become. This creates even more difficulty in assessing beauty, because age and ability can play a factor in this too. There are some jobs that beauty may play a larger role in as well. In a job where someone is face to face with others often, there may be more emphasis on wanting someone stereotypically attractive in that position. Whereas there may be less of an emphasis on beauty in a job where no one from outside the workplace interacts with you. When someone gains something from being attractive, this is referred to as a “beauty premium”.

There is evidence that beauty does yield higher wages earned. However, there may be underlying reasons why this is the case. Stinebrickner, Stinebrickner, and Sullivan (2018) conducted research on students’ earnings based on their attractiveness. Attractiveness was assessed based on 50 people rating the subjects’ physical beauty on a scale of 1-5. In this study, it was found that “Specifically, increasing attractiveness by one sample standard deviation (0.78 on the five-point scale) is associated with a 7.8% increase in wages, with the associated t-statistic having a value of 3.55.” (Stinebrickner, Stinebrickner, Sullivan, 11). There is evidence that there is a wage gap between those who are more conventionally attractive versus not. The authors also argue that “It is now well-established that physically attractive workers tend to earn higher wages than less attractive workers (Hamermesh and Biddle, 1994; Biddle and Hamermesh, 1998; Harper, 2000; Robins, Homer and French, 2011; Scholz and Sicinski, 2015)” (Stinebrickner, Stinebrickner, Sullivan, 1). This conclusion is drawn by support from other research done on the same topic. This same conclusion was also drawn from a Cipriani and Zago (2011), where they argue “Hamermesh and Biddle (H&B, 1994) and Biddle and Hamermesh (1998) found evidence that beauty affects earnings irrespective of gender.” (Cipriani, Zago, 428). So, we can conclude that beauty discrimination does exist, creating a wage gap as a result of the beauty premium.

Although there is evidence already of the fact that the “beauty premium” exists, as in there is a wage gap between stereotypically more attractive and stereotypically less attractive people, what is being explored more now, is exactly why it exists. There are studies done more recently that are more focused on why the beauty premium exists, and if there are deeper correlations between beauty and productivity. Some may think that those who are physically attractive earn more wages than those who are not, solely based on discrimination. However, some argue that these attractive people may be more productive, or may have higher levels of education. In a study done on a game show the authors created, where players had to eliminate one another, it was found that there was no correlation between one’s attractiveness and their willingness to cooperate or their overall performance. However, this study did show that the more attractive people did benefit from a beauty premium because the other players didn’t want to vote them out of the game. The authors describe this situation as “taste-based discrimination”, (Belot, Bhaskar, van de Ven,  852).  Belot, Bhaskar, and van de Ven (2009) find that there is no evidence of a correlation of productiveness and attractiveness, but that there is evidence of a “beauty premium”.

Another paper previously mentioned had the goal of distinguishing whether or not attractive people earned more because they were more productive or because of pure discrimination. Cipriano and Zago (2011) found “This research has found a relationship between students’ attractiveness and an index of academic performance.” (Cipriani, Zago, 445). In their research, they found that “According to our results, better-looking students perform better in the examinations: the coefficient is positive and highly significant in both hurdles” (Cipriani, Zago, 439). These results could possibly explain to some extent why more attractive people may earn more in wages. However, this study couldn’t conclusively say that more attractive people are commonly more productive, and thus makes them earn more.

Overall, there is evidence that beauty based wage differentials exist. However, the question that is not answered is why it exists. Some of the wage differential may be as a result of discrimination, but it could also be explained by higher productivity levels. Whether or not attractive people are more productive should be researched more. It’s hard to conduct this research because of the lack of a standard in how to measure physical attractiveness, but there should be more research on this before we can make conclusions about the validity of beauty discrimination on wage differentials.

Ability

Another type of discrimination is ability or disability discrimination. This can be anything from physical to mental and psychological disability. In this section, wage differentials in regard to ability will be explored. This type of discrimination is on a very wide spectrum, considering the amount of different disabilities that could hurt someone’s ability to do a certain job. Some jobs are more physically intensive, while some jobs are more intellectually intensive. If someone has no mental disability, but has a physical disability, there is seemingly no reason why that person should earn lower wages for sitting at a desk to do office work. Whereas, the same person may not be able to do a job that is more physically taxing, such as stocking shelves of a store and lifting heavy things. There are certain jobs that some people physically or mentally can’t do, and if they are employed, do these disabilities make them less productive, thus warranting a lower wage?

There does seem to be a wage gap between those with and without physical disabilities. However, similar to beauty described above, there may be explanations other than discrimination as to why those who have disabilities experience a wage gap. The explanation that many jump to is that disabled people may be less productive than someone who doesn’t have any disabilities. In the study done by Baldwin and Chung (2014), they conclude that “Overall, our results suggest most of the observed wage gap between workers with and without physical disabilities is explained by differences in education, functional limitations, occupational distributions and characteristics that determine the employment decision.” (Baldwin, Chung, 1406). These authors argue that the pay gap that exists for disabled people is explained less by discrimination and moreso by the differences outlined above. They argue that “Only a small fraction of the wage gap (one-tenth for men, one-fifth for women) is unexplained and potentially attributed to discrimination.” (Baldwin, Chung, 1406). Overall, Baldwin and Chung agree that there is a wage gap, but that not all of the gap can be explained by discrimination, and that a lot of it has to do with factors such as educational differences and limitations these workers may have.

Many researchers do acknowledge the wage differential between non-disabled and disabled workers, and thus try to study why the gap exists. Some researchers argue that a large part of the wage gap for disabled people has to do with discrimination; while others argue that there is a wage gap as a result of other factors. However, many agree that at least part of the wage gap has to do with discrimination. Krus, Schur, Rogers, and Ameri (2018), claim that loss of productivity does not account for the wage gap disabled people experience. In their research it is concluded that “Using several methods, we find that disability pay gaps generally remain after accounting for job requirements, indicating that people with disabilities receive lower pay even when their specific impairments should not limit their productivity in an occupation” (Krus, Schur, Rogers, Ameri, 828). They do not, however, believe that discrimination still accounts for all of the wage gap they experience. They believe there may be other things that account for their wage gap, but that discrimination is a large factor in why it exists.

There is evidence of discrimination against disabled people, and that it does account for a portion of the wage gap. What isn’t unanimous, is what else directly impacts the wage gap that disabled people experience. Malo and Pagan (2012), who did research on the wage gap in Europe for disabled individuals, found that there was evidence of the wage gap being a result of productivity differences. Since this research was done on workers in Europe, that could account for the differences in findings compared to Krus, Schur, Rogers, and Ameri (2018) findings. However, it is interesting that the findings are opposite of one another.

Overall, it seems that there is a universal finding that a wage gap exists between disabled and non-disabled people, when all else is held constant. What is not universally known, is what other factors influence this gap. Some argue that differences in education, level of productivity or other factors make up the wage gap, while some believe discrimination makes up a lot of the gap. More research should be done on what else affects the wage gap that disabled people experience. Otherwise, there is enough research indicating that the gap exists at least partially because of discrimination.

Religion

Religion can play a role in discrimination against workers’ wages and employment opportunities as well. It has been found that disparate treatment in employment in the workforce due to an individuals’ religion. This disparate treatment refers to the difference in treatment with respect to hiring, compensation, promotion, and so on. There have been a few court cases that were a result of disparate treatment due to religion such as Noyes v. Kelly Services, Inc. (2007). The court ruled that the employer at Kelly Services did not promote a woman who did not share similar religious beliefs as the employer while other employees who did share similar beliefs did in fact receive the promotion.

Between the years of 2000 and 2010, charges brought against employers for religious discrimination doubled. For comparison, discrimination charges concerning race went up 24% and charges for sex went up 15%. (Guhhman, Sonia, 447) This rapid growth shows us that the issue of religious discrimination has grown rapidly in recent years. It is believed much of this rapid growth of discrimination resulted from the events 9/11. After 9/11 many Americans’ views on the Muslim population became skewed and Muslim Americans were beginning to receive discriminatory backlash due to many Americans looking for a scapegoat. Surveys of Muslim workers in the United States show that perceptions of overt discrimination had risen by 76.3% after the events of 9/11 (King, E. B., & Ahmad, A. S. 886).

In many studies done in the past, we see some religious groups were disproportionately represented in certain industries. Studies show many Muslim employees worked in distribution, hotel, and restaurant industries, while Jewish employees skewed towards the banking, financial, and insurance industries. This alone does not prove religious discrimination in the workforce but it does provide some evidence that these industries may not be as free of discrimination as they claim to be. In the United Kingdom, The Home Office commissioned a study to understand and prevent future religious discrimination back in 2001. This study brought awareness to the situation and strengthened legal consequences to firms with religious discriminatory behavior. The same study was repeated in 2011 and found a decrease in discrimination, but there was still substantial record proving it was not completely outlawed. (Vickers, 165)

Public sector employment has been argued back and forth whether or not these organizations should be secular. On the grounds of sexual orientation, some religious views do not support equality of sexual orientation. Essentially allowing one subset demographic (religion) to exist without discrimination may decrease welfare for the other subset demographic (sexual orientation). While this is true it can also be argued that the public sector should reflect the views of its community and accommodate both religion and sexual orientation. This can be difficult for reasons stated before and has stirred up issues in court rulings before.

The treatment in these sectors becomes complicated when you take into account that there are various religious beliefs and practices that require different specific treatments. Getting down to the root of it, we must try to maintain fair and equal treatment to various religious groups. In some cases, the practices of different religions and the practices in the workplace may overlap and we must try to proportionately accommodate this. Court rulings have been ridiculed in the past for attempting to determine “core” religious requirements (Vickers, 285) Requirements such as wardrobe, paid holiday time off, and practices in the workplace. With the many newer minority religions it becomes difficult for courts to rule on whether or not some practices are deemed necessary. With more traditional religions courts can make false assumptions of knowledge of the religion.

Criminal Record

A criminal record is another category that many employers discriminate against employees for. It can become difficult when reviewing discrimination concerning criminal record due to so many variables such as job description, the severity of the offense, age, race, gender, and many other factors that alter results when testing. A study done by Devah Pager (2007), isolated many of these variables to try and discover the severity of discrimination in the workforce against individuals with criminal records.  One key feature of the study was to distribute the data for each occupation fairly. The data from occupations of low-skill/entry-level are more prevalent in the study compared to clerical and management positions. In the study, it was found that race plays a significant role and should be isolated.

One of the studies done was to determine the call back rate from interviews. Non-criminal whites received a 34% call back rate, non-criminal blacks received a 14% call back rate, criminal whites received a 17% call back rate, and criminal blacks received a 5% call back rate (Connet, 337). We clearly see two rather large call back rate gaps; the difference between criminal record and race. Although there is a large gap between criminal record whites, their call back rate still appears to be higher than that of non-criminal blacks.

The moral dilemma employers face concerns about the safety of their workplace. Many employers reserve the right to run background checks to ensure the safety of the workplace and other employees. In many cases, an employer can be held responsible for an employee’s actions and held liable for negligent hiring. For this reason, employers commonly justify their hiring process discrimination against individuals with criminal records. They believe they can use this information as a good indicator as to how an individual may conduct themselves in a work environment.

In the U.S., over 13 million arrests were made in 2001 (excluding traffic violations), with drug abuse alone, the most common offense, contributing to more than 1.5 million arrests, four-fifths of which were related to possession (U.S. Department of Justice, 2001). Many of these possession offenses may have been small amounts of cannabis which has recently been turning into a decriminalized offense in many areas of the U.S., but many employers will still recognize this as a potential indicator of poor behavior in the workplace. Many other petty crimes that most likely do not have any correlation to the safety of the workplace are turned away from employers due to the characterization.

Discriminatory hiring is in many cases indirect. The employer may not perceive their decisions as discriminatory. In many cases, employers will receive an application, run a background check and find out the applicant has a record. An employer will become less encouraged to hire an employee of this information alone. One issue with this method of determining fit applicants is that employers typically do not receive a full story when running background checks. They may only see a drug charge and assume the worst. This “criminal” act could be perceived to the employer as non-threatening if they knew the full story.

Another issue is the fairness of the criminal justice system itself. Many various racial and ethnic groups already suffer from discrimination in the legal system. Many ethnic minorities to this day still receive unfair trials and persecutions. Wrongful convictions are not a thing of the past and for many, this burden sticks to them even after they have served their time and punishment. The discrimination in the legal system carries over to the labor market and results in an exponential welfare loss for the common wrongfully convicted demographic groups.

Solutions

As stated above, there is a lot of evidence of pure discrimination in many of the aforementioned categories. Although the progress toward ending discrimination in the workplace has come a long way, there is still more to be improved upon, since pure discrimination is still a possible cause for the wage gap for many groups of individuals. One solution to lessen the wage gap would be to create stricter laws that are more widely enforced against discrimination resulting in wage differentials. Another solution could be to make sharing one’s salary with those in the same company more of a social norm. This could more easily address differences in wages with employers, which could be important in minimizing discrimination. A more short-term solution could be to grant wages to individuals blindly, only knowing their position and qualifications. This would minimize biases in setting wages, but also doesn’t address the root cause discrimination. There are many ways to help lessen the wage gap for minority groups of people.

Conclusion

As we have seen from the various studies above, discrimination still holds a heavy presence in the world and can greatly affect the labor market. The implications of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, beauty, ability, religion, and criminal record hold many individuals back from full their financial potential due to falling into one or more of these commonly discriminated demographics. We have found strong evidence to support that pure discrimination is the cause of a wage gap in the following categories; gender, race, sexual orientation, religion and criminal record. We have also found in beauty and ability that there is a wage gap resulting partially from discrimination, but that it can also be explained in part by factors other than discrimination. Regarding age, we couldn’t find evidence of pure discrimination, or evidence against it. We did find that a wage gap exists in all of the above categories, but what isn’t consistent, is whether or not it is because of pure discrimination. We have concluded that the wage gap in age, ability and beauty all need to be explored further to make definitive claims about pure discrimination. Above, we have also outlined three possible solutions that could lessen the wage gap for the groups of individuals we have discussed. While many studies, acts, and reforms have slowed the increase of discrimination in the workplace, it still holds a heavy burden in the labor market and can significantly alter an individuals wage or ability to obtain a particular occupation.

Works Cited

Allgood, S. “Age discrimination and academic labor markets” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. January 2020, Volume 169 (70-78). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.10.024

Baldwin, M. L., Chung, C. “Re-Examining the Models Used to Estimate Disability-Related Wage Discrimination.” Applied Economics, 2014. 46 (12): 1393–1408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2013.872762

Belot, M., Bhaskar, V., van de Ven, J. “Beauty and the Sources of Discrimination” The Journal of Human Resources. 2009, 43(3). (851-872) EBSCO. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.oswego.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=15&sid=e79e0dee-5a2a-46a9-8e59-4b6c44b63926%40sdc-v-sessmgr03

Carpenter, Kitt. “Gay Men Used to Earn Less than Straight Men; Now They Earn More.” Harvard Business Review, 4 Dec. 2017, hbr.org/2017/12/gay-men-used-to-earn-less-than-straight-men-now-they-earn-more.

Cipriani, G.P., Zago, A. “Productivity or Discrimination? Beauty and the Exams” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 73, 3 (2011), (428-447). doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2010.00619.x

Connett, Michael. “Employer Discrimination Against Individuals with a Criminal Record: The Unfulfilled Role of State Fair Employment Agencies.” Temp. L. Rev. 83 (2010): 1007.

Cortes, Patricia, and Jessica Pan. “Occupation and gender.” The Oxford handbook of women and the economy (2018): 425-452. doi:9780190628963

Curley, C. “SEXUAL ORIENTATION, SEXUAL HISTORY, AND INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES” Feminist Economics Vol. 24, No. 1, 88–113

Ghumman, Sonia, et al. “Religious discrimination in the workplace: A review and examination of current and future trends.” Journal of Business and Psychology 28.4 (2013): 439-454. Doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9290-0.

González, P., Santos L.D., Santos, M.C. “Education and gender wage differentials in Portugal: what can we learn from an age cohort analysis?” Education Economics. Vol. 17, No. 2, June 2009, (263–278). DOI: 10.1080/09645290802628437

King, E. B., & Ahmad, A. S. (2010). An experimental field study of interpersonal discrimination toward Muslim job applicants. Personnel psychology, 63(4), 881-906. Doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01199.x

Krus, D., Schur, L., Rogers, S., Ameri, M., “Why Do Workers with Disabilities Earn Less? Occupational Job Requirements and Disability Discrimination” British Journal of Industrial Relations. 56:4 December 2018 0007–1080, (798–834). doi: 10.1111/bjir.12257

Lam, H., & Harcourt, M. (2003). The use of criminal record in employment decisions: The rights of ex-offenders, employers and the public. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(3), 237-252. DOI: 10.1023/A:1026243413175

Malo, M.A., Pagan, R., “Wage differentials and disability across Europe: Discrimination and/or lower productivity?” International Labour Review. Vol. 151 (2012), No. 1–2 (43-60). EBSCO. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.oswego.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=11&sid=e79e0dee-5a2a-46a9-8e59-4b6c44b63926%40sdc-v-sessmgr03

Mount, R.I., Bennett, R.E. “Race and Sex Discrimination and Status as Elements in Wage Differentials” American Journal of Economics and Sociology (162-174)

Ozeren, Emir. “Sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace: A systematic review of literature.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 109.8 (2014): 1203-1215. doi:82053624

Ren, Xinhua S., Benjamin C. Amick, and David R. Williams. “Racial/ethnic disparities in health: the interplay between discrimination and socioeconomic status.” Ethnicity & disease 9.2 (1999): 151-165. Doi: 10421078

Schaffer, David L., Westenberg, Joseph M. “Time Flexibility, Women’s Wages, and the Gender Wage Gap”. Atlantic Economic Journal (2019): 47:217-239.

Shapiro, D. Sandell, S.H. “Age Discrimination in Wages and Displaced Older Men” Southern Economic Journal, 2001 (90-102). JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1058907?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Stinebrickner, T.R., Stinebrickner, R., Sullivan P.J. “Beauty, Job Tasks, and Wages: A New Conclusion about Employer Taste-Based Discrimination,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2018, vol 101(4), pages 602-615. ECONSTOR. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/180883/1/894414267.pdf

Strauss, David A. “The law and economics of racial discrimination in employment: The case for numerical standards.” Geo. LJ 79 (1990): 1619.https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a581/675a3712af521f20a57f79642a9cb24c12bf.pdf

Vickers, L. (2010). Religious discrimination in the workplace: an emerging hierarchy?. Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 12(3), 280-303. Doi: 10.1017/s0956618x10000414

Vickers, L. (2016). Religious freedom, religious discrimination and the workplace. Bloomsbury Publishing. Doi: 10.5040/9781472564313.ch-001