Unconscious Bias and Employment Discrimination: Is the Name Bielby Involved?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or receive my updates by Twitter, IM, or email. Thanks for visiting!
According to a recent article in BusinessWeek, many large class action employment discrimination cases are relying on the notion of unconscious bias, which has been evoked largely by a sociologist named Bielby.
The article states that Bielby has been involved in at least 50 cases, charging $450.00 per hour, and generally earning $30,000 or more per case.
Now, the criticism that is mentioned in this article by defense lawyers is that unconscious bias may operate when the people don’t know each other; but is less likely to occur when the people know each other.
Actually, the research I have reviewed doesn’t support that difference very well. Unconscious biases can affect performance ratings even when the people know each other.
Another implied criticism of unconscious bias, as suggested in some letters responding to the article, is that Bielby’s testimony is the only evidence in these cases! Not so; these cases typically involve statistical evidence showing group differences in pay, promotions, etc. So, to claim that Bielby’s testimony stands alone is incorrect.
Read here for the online version of the article on unconscious bias and Bielby.
Related Posts
- A Peek Behind the Scenes: Expert Witness Work in Employment Discrimination
- Employment Discrimination and Statistics: What Does Statistical Significance Mean?
- Incidence of Employment Discrimination: Is Perception Reality?
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing.
I realize the original posting is two years old, now, but since I just found it, I’ll give a social scientist’s (who has also served as an expert witness) perspective…
The research does indicate that people are less likely to rely on stereotypes when they’ve had the opportunity to get to know the other person. But, this does not mean that they stop relying on stereotypes when they’ve gotten to know each other. If you process information visually, picture an x/y graph with two positive slopes; one is a very steep positive slope (for a new acquaintance); the other is somewhat less steep (for someone whom the perceiver has known for a long time).
There are also organizational factors that contribute to or inhibit reliance on stereotypes — Some examples: Is there evidence of other “ist” (racist, sexist, etc.) comments that might suggest something discriminatory about the climate? What, if anything, is the org doing to be inclusive, in the general sense? How subjective were the processes used to make the HR decision? For example, when defendants testify that they relied on their “judgment,” or similar terms, plaintiff’s experts will likely see these terms as code words for “stereotypes.”
A good expert (regardless of his/her area of expertise) will see the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. So, I don’t think the assumption that a stereotype expert is a “plaintiff’s expert” is necessarily accrate. The problem, as I see it, is finding a expert for the defense side, when the factors I described in the previous paragraph (and others) do point to discrimination.