18 Page Sociology Paper Topic: Gender Discrimination Against Women In The Workplace
Mrs.Shaw
source10.pdf
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 1/27
Full Text | Scholarly Journals
Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace Nelson, Robert L; Sendroiu, Ioana; Dinovitzer, Ronit; Dawe, Meghan.
Law & Social Inquiry; Cambridge Vol. 44, Iss. 4, (Nov 2019): 1051-
1082. DOI:10.1017/lsi.2019.4
Download PDF
Cite Email Print All Options
k 9
Abstract Using quantitative and qualitative data from a large national sample of lawyers, we examine self-reports of
perceived discrimination in the legal workplace . Across three waves of surveys, we find that persons of
color, white women, and LGBTQ attorneys are far more likely to perceive they have been a target of
discrimination than white men. These differences hold in multivariate models that control for social
background, status in the profession and the work organization, and characteristics of the work
organization. Qualitative comments describing these experiences reveal that lawyers of different races,
genders, and sexual orientations are exposed to distinctive types of bias, that supervisors and clients are
the most frequent sources of discriminatory treatment, and the often-overt character of perceived
discrimination . These self-reports suggest that bias in the legal workplace is widespread and rooted in
the same hierarchies of race, gender, and sexual orientation that pervade society.
Full text Turn on search term navigation
INTRODUCTION
Despite widespread expressions of support for diversity and inclusion by leading law firms and corporate
law departments (Wilkins and Kim 2016) and new rules of professional conduct defining sexual
harassment and discrimination as ethical violations (Geraghty 2016; American Bar Association 2018), we
possess little systematic data on the prevalence and character of workplace discrimination in the U.S.
legal profession (but see Collins et al. 2017). While this is surprising given the considerable body of
research on race and gender inequality among lawyers (Rhode and Ricca 2015), it reflects the general
tendency in research on inequality to analyze unequal outcomes rather than the mechanisms that produce
and maintain workplace hierarchies of race, gender, and sexual orientation (Roscigno 2007).
Sociological Abstracts
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 2/27
In this Article we analyze self-reports of discrimination from a large national sample of lawyers and
qualitative comments about the type and source of bias they have encountered. Using these data, we map
the contours of perceived discrimination by race, gender, and sexual orientation in the contemporary
legal profession and analyze the social correlates of these patterns. Our analysis draws from and
advances theories of workplace discrimination . Quantitative results demonstrate the resilience of
ascriptive hierarchies across practice contexts and career stages. The qualitative data complement and
qualify the quantitative findings as they reveal that perceptions of discrimination are connected to the
identities of disadvantaged groups and the particular types of bias they experience in the workplace and
other professional contexts. Contrary to the common assertion that most discrimination today entails
implicit bias and subtle forms of unequal treatment (Green 2007; Wax 1999), respondents’ accounts show
that workplace bias is often explicit. Both overt workplace interactions and implicit bias appear to reinforce
the very hierarchies of race, gender, and sexual orientation decried by leaders of the legal profession.
These findings extend our theoretical understanding of discrimination and have important implications for
equal opportunity within the legal profession and the prospects for equal justice under the law .
THEORIZING SELF-REPORTS OF DISCRIMINATIONHierarchies of Race, Gender, and Sexuality among U.S.
Lawyers
In this Article we examine whether lawyers perceive that they have been the target of workplace
discrimination . We consider self-reports of discrimination not as forming the basis for a formal legal
claim, but as a measure of workplace inequality. As Hirsh and Lyons note, whether traditionally
disadvantaged groups perceive that they are treated unfairly at work due to their ascriptive status comes
prior to whether an individual or group files a legal claim (2010). Perceptions of discrimination by
marginalized groups are significant in their own right as a matter of workplace equality, but will also likely
affect their health and well-being (Pavalko et al. 2003), their level of job satisfaction (Collins et al. 2017),
and their willingness to continue working for a given employer (Payne-Pikus et al. 2010).
Perceptions of discrimination in part reflect the amount and character of discrimination in society. A
considerable body of social science research finds that women, persons of color, and LGBTQ persons
continue to face discrimination in the labor market and employing organizations (see, e.g., Fryer et al.
2013; Hull 2005; Quillian et al. 2017; Tilcsik 2011). Social psychological research suggests that these
recurring processes are produced by status belief systems. When a certain group controls more resources
in a given situation, people tend to equate greater power with greater competence (Ridgeway et al. 2009).
In the contemporary United States, these status construction processes favor certain groups—whites,
men, the middle or upper class (Cuddy et al. 2007; Fiske 2011). Once these status hierarchies are in place,
they become the basis for continued competition as groups develop strategies to enhance their social
position through the pursuit of elite credentials and other markers of social superiority (Bourdieu 1984;
Lamont 2012).
Another mechanism that sustains workplace hierarchies is stereotyping based on ascriptive
characteristics. Gender and racial stereotypes afford individual members of privileged gender or ethno-
racial groups the presumption of competence while women and racial minorities are held to a higher
standard than their white male counterparts (Rhode 2015; Ridgeway and England 2007; Cuddy et al. 2004).
For example, African Americans and Latinos are assumed to be less capable and qualified, and women are
assumed to be less committed. Moreover, men’s achievements are often attributed to their abilities while
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 3/27
women’s achievements are attributed to external factors, and women are perceived as ineffective at self-
promotion and cultivating clients (Rhode 2015; Cruz and Molina 2010; Thomas 2001; Swim and Sanna
1996).
Against the backdrop of social science research on discrimination in American society and the legacy of
racism, sexism, and religious discrimination in the American legal profession (Ladinsky 1963; Smigel
1969; Auerbach 1976; Epstein 1981; Heinz and Laumann 1982; Abel 1989), it would be surprising if we did
not find evidence of ascriptive or status -based differences in contemporary legal workplaces . Yet there have been significant transformations in the demographic makeup of the profession. Women now make
up more than 30 percent of all lawyers and almost half of lawyers under age forty (Carson and Park 2012;
ABA 2017a). About one-quarter of law school graduates are persons of color, divided roughly equally
between Asian Americans, African Americans, and Latinos (Snyder et al. 2016; Chung et al. 2017). These
demographic shifts have been coupled with at least the symbolic embrace of equal opportunity by leaders
of the organized bar, the judiciary, corporate law departments, and major law firms (Wilkins and Kim
2016).
Despite these shifts, dramatic gender and racial inequalities persist in the legal profession. Women and
persons of color have gained entry-level positions in corporate law firms at historically high levels but
continue to be underrepresented among partnership positions (Noonan et al. 2008; Payne-Pikus et al. 2010;
Kay and Gorman 2008, 2016; ABA 2017b; NALP 2017). Female attorneys on average earn 80 percent as
much as their male counterparts, a disparity not explained by productivity-based performance differences
(Dinovitzer et al. 2009; Dinovitzer et al. 2014). And female lawyers must contend with a long-hours culture
that rewards total commitment while balancing their greater share of familial responsibilities (Sommerlad
2016; Rhode and Ricca 2015; Epstein and Seron 2001; Hagan and Kay 1995). In addition to being
underrepresented among law firm partnerships, research indicates that women and racial and ethnic
minorities are also underrepresented among tenured law professors, law school deans, and general
counsel in Fortune 500 companies (Rhode 2017; Rhode and Ricca 2015; Neumann 2000), and are more
likely than white men to begin their careers in the public sector (Dinovitzer et al. 2004). The number of
LGBTQ lawyers has risen since the National Association of Law Placement (NALP) began collecting data
on this group in 2002, but they are concentrated primarily within associate positions (NALP 2017).
These inequalities appear rooted in stereotypes about gender, race, and lawyering. Pierce asserted that the
dominant cultural script in many fields of law practice was that of a highly assertive male (1995). Women
were left to mimic that style or choose areas of practice where they could cultivate an alternative, “more
caring” approach. Critical race scholars have illustrated the tensions that attorneys of color face as they
make choices about whether and how to “act white” and thus meet expectations within predominantly white
law firms and law schools (Carbado and Gulati 2013; see Williams 1991; Wilkins and Gulati 1996; Barnes
and Mertz 2012).
Women of color face particular challenges because they are outsiders on the boundaries of both race and
gender from the dominant group in the legal workplace (Crenshaw 1989). Qualitative research suggests
that African-American women (Reeves 2001), Asian-American women (Chung et al. 2017), and Latinas
(García-López 2008) experience discrimination in the workplace in different ways from men of the same
race and ethnicity, and sometimes experience sexism from men of their own race. LGBTQ status also cuts
across race and gender. While LGBTQ attorneys may “cover” their sexual orientation (Yoshino 2006), they
too may feel the sting of discrimination in the workplace .
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 4/27
Theories of Workplace Discrimination : Implications for Lawyers
In an important article, Hirsh and Lyons examined the relative influence of ascriptive status , personal
characteristics, and workplace context in explaining whether a sample of workers “reported being
discriminated against at work because of their race or ethnicity in the previous year…” (2010, 280). They
found that race and gender were associated with perceptions of discrimination , controlling for the
characteristics of the job and the work organization. But workers who the authors characterized as more
“entitled” because they were better educated, in a union, or held positions of authority were more likely to
perceive discrimination , while workers employed at firms that signaled fair treatment through formalized
personnel policies were less likely to perceive discrimination . Thus, it was a combination of ascriptive
traits and workplace context that best explained perceptions of discrimination .
Drawing on Hirsh and Lyons and other research on workplace discrimination , we sought to examine the
relative importance of ascriptive status versus other variables to perceptions of discrimination by
lawyers. In addition to ascription, the literature points to the potential importance of career stage, marital
and family status , social background, professional status , status in the work organization, and
characteristics of the organization in which an attorney works. These other variables may explain away
the effects of ascription or may interact with ascriptive status to increase or decrease perceptions of
discrimination .
Ascription, Attribution, and Intersectionality
Members of traditionally marginalized groups are more likely to perceive discrimination in the workplace ,
both as a matter of objective experience (see Quillian et al. 2017 and other sources cited above) and the
result of greater sensitivity or vigilance to discriminatory treatment, what is referred to as attribution (see
Ruggiero and Major 1998). Self-reports about personal experience with discrimination are subject to two
kinds of errors: failing to see discrimination that objectively exists and seeing discrimination when it does
not exist (Major and Kaiser 2005). Personal and situational factors shape the accuracy of such judgments
(Major and Sawyer 2009). If members of disadvantaged groups have experienced discrimination in the
past, they may be more sensitive to cues about unfair treatment and more likely to attribute a negative
outcome to bias than members of traditionally advantaged groups (Feldman Barrett and Swim 1998; Cohen
et al. 1999; Steele et al. 2002). High stigma consciousness makes African Americans, Asian Americans,
Latinos, and women more likely to perceive personal and group discrimination (Major and Sawyer 2009).
The research suggests a gradient among racial and ethnic groups, with African Americans the most likely
to report experiencing discrimination , whites the least likely, and Latinos and Asian Americans in between
(Smith 2002).
The scholarship on intersectionality suggests that women of color may be especially subject to
discrimination and to reporting perceived discrimination (see Collins 2009). The survey of North Carolina
lawyers by Collins et al. (2017) found such an intersectional pattern, with African-American women reporting
the highest levels of discrimination by race, sex, and age.
Career Stage
Studies that include longitudinal measures or a variable for age offer mixed results about whether workers
will perceive more or less discrimination over the course of their careers (McLaughlin et al. 2012, Hirsh
and Lyons 2010, Collins et al. 2017). Intuitively, we expect the rate of self-reports will decline over time as
respondents who encountered perceived discrimination would likely leave discriminatory environments for
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 5/27
less-biased environments over the course of their career. Yet, as we discuss below, women may experience
more discrimination as their careers progress if they encounter penalties for having children or suffer a
backlash as they assume more authority at work.
Marital and Family Status
Given the findings of discrimination based on parental status (Correll et al. 2007; Cuddy et al. 2004), we
expect that women with children will be more likely to perceive workplace discrimination than other women
and men, including men who have children (Kay and Wallace 2009). Moreover, research suggests that single
women may be more frequent targets of sexual harassment than married women because they are seen as
being more sexually available and less protected, and as threatening traditional gender roles (De Coster et
al. 1999).
Social Background and Professional Status
Social background and its connection to elite educational credentials continues to play a role in shaping
the career opportunities of lawyers in the Anglo-American legal professions (Rivera and Tilcsik 2016;
Rivera 2016; Ashley and Empson 2016; Webley et al. 2016). It may be that lawyers from less privileged
backgrounds and from lower status law schools may be more likely to perceive they are discriminated
against. However, following Hirsh and Lyons (2010), it may be that lawyers from more privileged
backgrounds or with law degrees from more selective institutions may feel more entitled and, therefore,
more likely to perceive unfair treatment.
Status in the Work Organization
Both formal and informal status in the work organization may shape perceptions of discrimination . In
their examination of sexual harassment in the workplace , McLaughlin et al. (2012) tested two competing
conceptions of the role of power: a vulnerable-victim approach and a power-threat approach. The former
conception argues that less powerful, more vulnerable people are more likely to report being sexually
harassed at work; the latter suggests, paradoxically, that women with more power are more likely to be
harassed because they threaten the male workplace hierarchy. The authors’ findings strongly support the
power-threat approach and suggest it might have broader application beyond sex discrimination : members
of traditionally marginalized racial groups might also report more discrimination as they rise in
organizational authority. Other research suggests that if women and persons of color are not integrated
into social networks in law firms, and thus are socially isolated, they will be less committed to staying at
the firm and more likely to perceive discrimination (Payne-Pikus et al. 2010).
Characteristics of Work Organization
A considerable body of organizational research examines the relationship between organizational
characteristics and levels of inequality and discrimination (see, e.g., Baron et al. 1991; Hirsh and Kornrich
2008; Kalev et al. 2006; Reskin and McBrier 2000). More formalized personnel structures and policies,
usually associated with organization size, are likely to reduce levels of perceived discrimination , either
because such structures actually reduce discrimination or because they present a symbolic commitment to
nondiscrimination that can shape workers’ perceptions (Hirsh and Lyons 2010; Edelman 2016; Bisom-Rapp
1999). Yet in the legal profession, large law firms are up-or-out hierarchies in which women and persons
of color have much higher rates of attrition than white men (Henderson and Galanter 2008). We expect,
therefore, that respondents will report higher levels of perceived discrimination in large firms.
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 6/27
Research suggests that public sector employers are friendlier to minorities and women than private sector
firms (Roscigno 2007, 12; Wilson and McBrier 2005). In the legal profession, women and minorities have
been overrepresented in public sector employment (Dixon and Seron 1995; Lempert et al. 2001). Thus, we
expect to see lower levels of perceived discrimination in public sector organizations. The racial and
gender composition of the workplace also is likely to shape perceptions of discrimination by
disadvantaged groups. In their study of Alberta lawyers, Kay and Wallace (2009) find that in law firms
with more than a token number of women lawyers, women receive higher levels of emotional and
informational support. We may surmise that such a context would produce lower levels of perceived
discrimination .
Explicit or Implicit Forms of Bias
A central issue in theoretical and policy debates about discrimination in the legal profession and more
broadly, is whether most discrimination today arises from implicit or unconscious bias rather than more
explicit biases against protected groups. A substantial body of research suggests that implicit bias in
workplace decisions affects protected groups (Banaji and Greenwald 2013; Greenwald and Krieger 2006;
Kang and Banaji 2006; Krieger and Fisk 2006; but see Mitchell and Tetlock 2006). Decision-makers
discriminate without conscious intent based on pervasive and uncontrollable biases against disadvantaged
groups. Some scholars suggest that “unintentional or ‘unconscious’ discrimination has become the most
pervasive and important form of bias operating in society” (Wax 1999, 1130; see also Green 2007). Yet
other scholars continue to show that a significant portion of discrimination claims involve overt acts
(Sperino and Thomas 2017; Berrey et al. 2017; Selmi 2017). The survey data from After the JD (AJD) are
not well-suited to addressing this debate, but the comments from respondents about the nature of the
discrimination they experienced provide insights into the relative prevalence of overt and implicit forms of
bias in legal workplaces .
MEASURING SELF-REPORTS OF DISCRIMINATION
Our empirical analysis focuses on respondents’ self-reports about being the target of discrimination in
the workplace . While self-reports are subjective, lawyers’ perceptions of discrimination are significant in
themselves. If we find that particular groups of lawyers are more likely to perceive being targets of
discrimination , it would have important implications for equality and opportunity in the legal profession.
We follow a tradition of other researchers who have used survey methods to collect self-reports of
discrimination as measures of inequality (Bobo and Suh 2000; Smith 2002).
AJD is based on a nationally representative sample of lawyers who were admitted to the bar in 2000. The
survey is composed of three waves, conducted in 2002–2003, 2007–2008, and 2012–2013. Across three
waves of data collection, we received responses from 5,399 different attorneys, or 65.6 percent of the
eligible sample group of 8,225. The numbers we report here are unweighted, without adjustment for
whether a respondent was part of a minority oversample or according to patterns of nonresponse by
sampling unit.
Self-Reports of Discrimination by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Sexual Orientation Across Three Waves of
Surveys
The dependent variable for the analyses below is a composite measure of questions referring to specific
types of discrimination experiences. Respondents were asked: “During the last two years, has any of the
following ever happened to you in your place of work by virtue of your race, religion, ethnicity, gender,
1
2
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 7/27
disability, or sexual orientation?” Their answer options in waves 2 and 3 were: “experienced demeaning
comments or other types of harassment”; “missed out on a desirable assignment”; “had a client request
someone other than you to handle a matter”; “had a colleague or supervisor request someone other than
you to handle a matter”; or had “experienced one or more other forms of discrimination ” with a “please
specify” answer field. The wave 1 questionnaire did not include the item on supervisors or colleagues
requesting someone else on a matter. The composite discrimination variable for each wave is binary and
equals one if a respondent answered in the affirmative to any of the four or five answer options.
We rely on a composite measure of perceptions of discrimination to capture the full range of experiences
in the legal workplace . To avoid the difficulty of subjective definitions of discrimination , we asked about
specific negative experiences based on ascriptive characteristics. This is a purposefully broad approach.
As we discuss below, we also conducted analyses of individual items used in the composite measure.
With the one exception of client requests, we found no differences in results between the composite
measure and the individual items.
Table 1 presents the breakdown of self-reports of discrimination by detailed race and gender categories
and LGBTQ status . Contrary to our expectation that perceived discrimination would decline over career
stage, we find remarkable continuity across waves, varying between 25 percent and 26 percent. But
consistent with our expectations, we see striking differences across race, gender, and LGBTQ status , as well
as at their intersection. In terms of race, African Americans report the most discrimination , followed by
Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Other (mostly multiracial respondents), and whites. In every
racial and ethnic group, women report higher levels of experiencing discrimination than their male
counterparts. By far the highest level of reports come from African-American women. For LGBTQ
respondents, men and women report similar levels of discrimination . LGBTQ women and non-LGBTQ
women report similar levels of discrimination , suggesting that gender bias is equally pervasive as sexual
orientation bias for women. However, LGBTQ men report almost twice as much discrimination as do non-
LGBTQ men. Compared to other surveys of self-reported workplace discrimination , that vary between 18
percent and 33 percent for African Americans and Latinos (Berrey et al. 2017, 46–47), the rates of self-
reported discrimination by attorneys of color and white women are strikingly high.
TABLE 1.
Self-Reported Discrimination by Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation across Waves
Self-Reported Discrimination
AJD 1 AJD 2 AJD 3
Status Group % (n) % (n) % (n)
Race Gender
African American Female 48.3 (232) 40 (197) 50.3 (173)
Male 34.0 (159) 34.7 (144) 42.4 (92)
Total 42.5 (391) 37.5 (341) 47.6 (265)
3
4
5
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 8/27
Latino Female 37.5 (176) 34.3 (166) 44.7 (141)
Male 25.8 (209) 17.6 (176) 18.8 (138)
Total 31.2 (385) 25.7 (342) 31.9 (279)
Native American Female 34.5 (29) 46.2 (26) 40.9 (22)
Male 21.9 (32) 28.6 (28) 26.1 (23)
Total 27.9 (61) 37.0 (54) 33.3 (45)
Asian American Female 36.4 (206) 26.7 (180) 29.4 (170)
Male 24.5 (188) 19.3 (166) 19.4 (129)
Total 30.7 (394) 23.1 (346) 25.1 (299)
White Female 34.6 (1170) 32.5 (1023) 29.8 (936)
Male 13.3 (1629) 14.3 (1347) 12.9 (1045)
Total 22.2 (2799) 22.2 (2370) 20.9 (1981)
Other Female 38.9 (18) 37.5 (8) 42.9 (14)
Male 21.7 (23) 22.2 (18) 15.4 (13)
Total 29.3 (41) 26.9 (26) 29.6 (27)
Total Female 36.9 (1831) 33.1 (1600) 31.5 (1453)
Male 17.1 (2240) 16.9 (1879) 16.2 (1440)
Total 26.0 (4071) 24.4 (3479) 23.9 (2893)
LGBTQ Status Gender
LGBTQ Female 35.7 (56) 32.1 (53) 32.0 (50)
Male 38.5 (65) 28.1 (57) 29.4 (51)
Non-LGBTQ Female 36.6 (1865) 33.4 (1547) 34.0 (1438)
Male 16.4 (2185) 16.6 (1810) 15.7 (1393)
Total Female 36.6 (1921) 33.4 (1600) 33.9 (1488)
Male 17.1 (2250) 16.9 (1867) 16.2 (1444)
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 9/27
Total 26.1 (4171) 24.5 (3467) 25.2 (2932)
Multivariate Models
We now turn to logistic regression models predicting self-reported discrimination , both the composite
measure we have previously discussed (see also Table 1), and a measure indicating whether a client had
requested another lawyer to handle a matter. Presenting separate models for each wave of data allows us
to consider the different patternings of results in each wave while taking full advantage of the number of
responses at each wave. We used multiple imputation to account for missing data. Analyses were
performed using the mi estimate: logit command in Stata, version fourteen.
Independent Variables
We detail below the range of measures that correspond to our theoretical expectations about the social
correlates of perceived discrimination . In Appendix Table 1 we provide means and standard deviations for
the variables we employ.
Ascriptive Status
We include the status -based variables of central interest in this analysis: race/ethnicity and gender and
LGBTQ status . Given relatively small numbers in some of the cells presented in Table 1, and our interest
in analyzing the combined effects of race and gender, we created a four-category variable for race and
gender: women of color, white women, men of color, and white men (with the latter as the reference
category). We also included a variable for whether respondents identified as LGBTQ.
Marital and Family Status
We include variables for marital status and parental status at each wave.
Social Background
We measure the effect of social background by entering a binary variable for father’s education (with
fathers with graduate or professional schooling compared to all others). An extensive body of research
identifies father’s education as a measure of parental status (Dinovitzer 2011; Hauser and Warren 1997;
DiMaggio and Mohr 1985). Father’s education has been found to be strongly correlated with mother’s
education and to have fewer missing or difficult-to-interpret cases (Jæger and Holm 2003).
Professional Status
We include two measures of professional status : the selectivity of the law school respondent attended
(with a binary variable representing respondents who attended the least selective tier three or four law
schools compared to all others) and a measure for whether the respondent reported that they were
practicing law at the time of their survey response. An exit from law practice does not necessarily entail a
decline in occupational status , yet it is a common reference point for professional success (see, e.g., NALP
2016).
Status in Work Organization
6
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 10/27
We include several measures of status in the work organization: the interaction of being female with
whether the respondent supervises other employees; number of hours worked, which we employ as a
measure of relative position in work production, but which can also be seen as a measure of the work
intensity of the organization; number of years in organization; and whether the respondent spends
recreational time with partners and managers, a variable that has proven useful in measuring social
isolation in professional firms (Payne-Pikus et al. 2010).
Characteristics of Work Organization
We include measures for whether the employing organization is in the private sector or public sector, with
the business sector as the reference category; organization size as measured by number of total
employees; and gender and race composition of the employer as measured by whether the percentage of
women or persons of color (as estimated by the respondent) exceeds the proportion for the entire
sample.
Composite Measure of Self-Reported Discrimination
We began by investigating the main effects of the status -based variables of race, gender, and LGBTQ
identity with no controls. In models not shown, we confirmed the pattern we saw in Table 1, finding
statistically significant effects for race and gender in all three waves and LGBTQ status in waves 1 and 2.
Table 2 shows the results for models that include the remainder of the independent variables. In all three
waves, the race and gender variables remain statistically significant. Women of color have odds of
perceiving discrimination that are between 3.3 and 4.4 times greater than those of white men, followed by
white women whose odds of perceiving discrimination are between 2.5 and 3.3 times greater than white
men, followed closely by men of color, whose odds are between 1.8 and 2.4 times greater than white men.
We thus see very consistent results arrayed by race and gender even after controlling for several variables
that might be plausibly linked to self-reports of discrimination .
TABLE 2.
Logistic Regressions Predicting Discrimination for Each AJD Wave
Variables AJD1
(N=4,236)
AJD2
(N=3,513)
AJD3
(N=2,946)
Odds Ratio Std. Error Odds Ratio Std. Error Odds
Ratio
Std.
Error
Constant 0.06*** 0.02*** 0.08*** 0.02 0.08*** 0.02
Ascriptive Status
Women of Color 4.41*** 0.55 3.34*** 0.48 4.14*** 0.69
Men of Color 2.35*** 0.29 1.84*** 0.33 2.22*** 0.34
White Women 3.32*** 0.37 3.03*** 0.34 2.48*** 0.39
LGBTQ 1.83** 0.36 1.70* 0.47 1.42 0.34
7
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 11/27
Family Status
Married 0.92 0.08 0.95 0.17 0.84 0.10
Parent 1.09 0.10 1.12 0.17 1.04 0.11
Social Background
Father Graduate/Professional
School
1.03 0.08 1.16 0.18 1.09 0.11
Professional Status
Tier 3 or 4 Law School 1.24** 0.10 1.09 0.17 1.14 0.11
Practicing Lawyer 1.45 0.29 0.99 0.66 0.85 0.13
Status in Work Organization
Female Supervisor 1.09 0.13 0.88 0.20 1.37* 0.17
Hours Worked 1.00 0.00 1.29** 0.00 1.01** 0.00
Number of Years in
Organization
1.05** 0.02 1.17 0.02 0.99 0.01
Recreational Time with
Partners/Managers
0.90 0.10 1.00 0.13 1.01 0.02
Characteristics of Work Organization
Private Sector 1.17 0.19 1.12* 0.51 1.19 0.17
Public Sector 1.24 0.20 1.02 0.44 1.27 0.18
Organization Size 0.99 0.01 0.08 0.01 1.00 0.00
Organization High Percent Male 1.19 0.12 0.97 0.15 1.24 0.14
Organization High Percent
Minorities
1.02 0.11 1.09 0.17 0.96 0.11
*p≤0.05, **p≤0.01, ***p≤0.001
Note: We tested interaction effects for female*parent and female*married, but neither was statistically significant at conventional significance levels.
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 12/27
The effect of LGBTQ status is also significant, yet the effect size is smaller. At wave 1, LGBTQ
respondents have odds of perceiving discrimination that are 1.8 times higher compared to non-LBGTQ
respondents, a 1.7 odds ratio in wave 2, and a 1.4 odds ratio in wave 3, which is non-significant. The lack
of statistical significance at wave 3 may well reflect the somewhat smaller number of LGBTQ cases
available at wave 3, but otherwise we could not develop a good explanation from either the survey or
comments data. This is a topic that should be pursued in future research.
The effects of other independent variables, with a few exceptions, are not statistically significant and
therefore tend to reject many of the expectations based on theories of workplace discrimination . These
include null effects for marital or family status and having a highly educated father; attending a less
selective law school increases the odds of perceiving discrimination but only in wave 1. The
characteristics of the work organization also largely do not affect rates of perceiving discrimination .
Surprisingly, private sector lawyers report higher discrimination only in wave 2. Status in the work
organization does have significant effects, but some only emerge at wave 3. Our results support McLaughlin
et al.’s (2012) suggestion that women supervisors are more likely to experience discrimination than other
women. By wave 3, being a female supervisor becomes a significant predictor of discrimination , and this is
in the context of wave 3 having the highest proportion of female supervisors, growing from
approximately 8 percent of respondents in wave 1 to 21 percent in wave 2 and 22 percent in wave 3.
Hours worked becomes statistically significant in waves 2 and 3, supporting the notion that attorneys who
work in high demand positions are more likely to perceive discrimination . It may be that by wave 2, those
working long hours are more keenly aware of the competition for senior positions and, therefore, are likely
to perceive bias in how they are treated. Somewhat surprisingly, whether a respondent spends recreational
time with partners and managers has no significant relationship to perceptions of discrimination .
The multivariate results drive home the salience of ascriptive characteristics for explaining perceptions of
discrimination . In Figure 1 we present the predicted probabilities of perceiving discrimination at each
wave by race/gender and LGBTQ status based on the models in Table 2. The probability of white men
perceiving discrimination is between 13 percent and 14 percent across the three waves, which is
substantially lower than for the other race/gender groups. Women of color have the highest probability of
perceiving discrimination in all three waves, ranging from 35 percent to 41 percent, and have odds of
perceiving discrimination that are about 3 to 4.5 times greater than white men. Although white women and
LGBTQ respondents have consistently higher probabilities than white men and non-LGBTQ respondents, the
probability of self-reporting discrimination decreases for both groups across waves, from 35 percent to 28
percent and from 37 percent to 29 percent, respectively. For non-LGBTQ respondents, the probability of
perceiving discrimination remains remarkably stable across waves, varying only between 22 percent and 25
percent.
FIGURE 1. Predicted Probability of Self-Reporting Discrimination across Waves
Clients Requesting Another Attorney
We tested the same multivariate models on the specific types of discrimination from which we
constructed the composite measure. For all but one of the five specific measures we found virtually
identical results as for the composite discrimination variable. The one exception was the question about
whether a client had requested another attorney due to the respondent’s ascribed status . The models in
Table 3 reveal interesting similarities and differences from the results for the composite measure of
discrimination .
8
9
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 13/27
TABLE 3.
Logistic Regressions Predicting Clients Requesting New Attorney for Each AJD Wave
Variables AJD1
(N=4,192)
AJD2
(N=3,446)
AJD3
(N=2,923)
Odds Ratio Std. Error Odds Ratio Std. Error Odds
Ratio
Std.
Error
Constant 0.02*** 0.01 0.01*** 0.00 0.00*** 0.00
Ascriptive Status
Women of Color 1.97*** 0.36 2.09*** 0.48 2.80*** 0.77
Men of Color 1.25 0.24 1.59* 0.33 1.31 0.34
White Women 2.02*** 0.33 1.71** 0.34 2.31*** 0.59
LGBTQ 0.90 0.31 1.37 0.47 0.58 0.30
Family Status
Married 1.11 0.14 0.98 0.17 0.85 0.17
Parent 1.11 0.15 1.13 0.17 0.99 0.17
Social Background
Father Graduate/Professional
School
0.82 0.10 1.27 0.18 1.27 0.20
Professional Status
Tier 3 or 4 Law School 1.37** 0.16 1.24 0.17 1.01 0.16
Practicing Lawyer 1.10 0.30 2.23** 0.66 2.17* 0.74
Status in Work Organization
Female Supervisor 1.07 0.21 1.01 0.20 1.03 0.22
Hours Worked 1.01* 0.00 1.01* 0.00 1.01* 0.01
Number of Years in
Organization
1.05 0.03 0.99 0.02 1.05* 0.02
Recreational Time with
Partners/Managers
1.09 0.15 0.91 0.13 1.00 0.02
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 14/27
Characteristics of Work Organization
Private Sector 1.93* 0.54 2.16*** 0.51 2.88*** 0.76
Public Sector 1.87* 0.53 1.73* 0.44 1.28 0.36
Organization Size 0.91*** 0.02 0.99 0.01 1.00 0.00
Organization High Percent Male 0.97 0.14 0.97 0.15 1.08 0.19
Organization High Percent
Minorities
1.01 0.16 1.09 0.17 1.37 0.23
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
In all three waves, women of color and white women were significantly more likely than white men to report
that a client had requested a different attorney. It is notable that in wave 3 women of color have odds of
perceiving discrimination that are 2.8 times greater than are white men and white women’s odds are 2.3
times greater than white men. Men of color are only statistically significantly different from white men in
wave 2, suggesting that gender may be more of an impediment to client representation than race.
Working in the private sector is a statistically significant predictor of this type of perceived
discrimination across all waves, supporting our expectation about sectoral differences in perceived
discrimination . Yet, somewhat contrary to that expectation, working in the public sector is a significant
predictor in waves 1 and 2. We also find some support for our expectation that larger organizations would
contain fewer self-reports of discrimination . In wave 1 only, we find that organization size has a
statistically significant negative effect on having had a client request a different attorney. This may in part
reflect the relative absence of client contact in large organizations at early career stages. Reports of
client requests for other attorneys also are significantly associated with being a practicing lawyer in waves
2 and 3 and working longer hours ( in all three waves). Attorneys who no longer practice may not have
clients in a conventional sense, and so may be less exposed to this possibility. The effect of hours worked
is more difficult to explain, but may reflect greater deference to clients’ preferences in more intense work
environments as indicated by hours worked. In sum, the models for clients requesting other attorneys
show the effects of race and gender, but also reflect more contextual effects than for the composite
measure.
The quantitative data demonstrate striking differences in perceptions of discrimination across race,
gender, and sexual orientation that are not explained away by other factors. But to understand the
experiences that underlie these numbers, it is necessary to examine our qualitative data.
QUALITATIVE RESULTS: ACCOUNTS OF PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION
While our survey data are powerful for systematically analyzing the prevalence and social correlates of
self-reports of discrimination , qualitative data offer uniquely valuable information. It can reveal “how
inequality is created and maintained, rather than merely its extent” (Roscigno 2007, 8). Open-ended
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 15/27
accounts state in the respondents’ own words how they see their position in the workplace , the kinds of
interactions they perceive as enacting discrimination , whether the discriminatory conduct they observe is
explicit or subtle, and who are the actors in the workplace or in professional contexts who engage in
discriminatory conduct (e.g. Feagin 1991; Feagin and McKinney 2003).
Our survey form provided respondents with the opportunity to provide comments about their experiences
with discrimination . While this approach has the benefit of allowing broad coverage of the range of
perceived discrimination , the accounts are necessarily short—limited to the space in a comments field in
the survey instrument. Below we first present simple counts about the nature and source of perceived
discrimination . We then analyze the content of the comments.
Positionality and Perceived Discrimination : Counts of the Nature and Source of Discrimination by Race,
Gender, and Sexual Orientation
Across all waves, we received a total of 1,472 comments about perceived experiences of discrimination at
work. Between 44 percent and 48 percent of respondents in each wave who reported that they experienced
some kind of discrimination offered a written comment. Within the subsample of respondents who
reported experiencing discrimination , chi-square tests indicate that there are no consistent differences
between the ascriptive characteristics or practice settings of respondents who wrote a comment and
those who did not. Thus, those providing comments appear to be representative of the larger group of
respondents who reported an experience with discrimination .
We coded the comments both according to the type of discrimination experienced and for the source of
discrimination . A comment can indicate more than one type and source of discrimination ; thus, the
number of codes exceeds the number of comments. Table 4 classifies the codes by race and gender
categories and LGBTQ status (note that LGBTQ respondents also appear in race and gender categories).
The prevalence and distribution of comments referring to various types and sources of discrimination
were relatively consistent across waves. Aside from a predictable drop-off in the proportion of comments
referring to age discrimination and an increase in the number of comments citing a motherhood penalty—
both reflecting life-course developments—there were no significant changes in the nature of the
comments across the three waves.
TABLE 4.
Summary Table of Type and Source of Bias Reported in Comments by Status Group, All Three Waves
Code Women
of
Color
White
Women
Men
of
Color
White
Men
LGBTQ
n % n % N % n % n %
Type of Bias
Group Animus
Female Gender
Bias
198 35.3 356 51.7 7 3.4 6 2.7 15 20.5
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 16/27
Racial Bias 169 30.1 12 1.7 103 49.5 10 4.4 11 15.1
LGBTQ
Discrimination
1 0.2 9 1.3 7 3.4 16 7.1 29 39.7
Reverse
Discrimination
Gender
0 0.0 1 0.1 8 3.8 46 20.4 1 1.4
Religious
Discrimination
7 1.2 17 2.5 16 7.7 45 20.0 3 4.1
Reverse
Discrimination
Race
1 0.2 6 0.9 2 1.0 37 16.4 2 2.7
Age
Discrimination
32 5.7 52 7.6 11 5.3 21 9.3 0 0.0
Unspecified
Hostility
59 10.5 35 5.1 38 18.3 17 7.6 2 2.7
Sexual
Harassment
29 5.2 76 11.0 1 0.5 0 0.0 1 1.4
Part-
Time/Motherhood
Penalty
29 5.2 75 10.9 0 0.0 1 0.4 2 2.7
NEC/Other* 26 4.6 34 4.9 14 6.7 22 9.8 6 8.2
Appearance
Discrimination
10 1.8 15 2.2 1 0.5 4 1.8 1 1.4
Total (Type of Bias)
561 100.0 688 100.0 208 100.0 225 100.0 73 100.0
Source of Bias
Clients 78 27.2 124 31.5 40 35.1 53 53.0 9 60.0
Supervisors 108 37.6 162 41.1 42 36.8 28 28.0 15 50.0
Colleagues 37 12.9 42 10.7 20 17.5 8 8.0 6 20.0
Lawyers 26 9.1 32 8.1 3 2.6 5 5.0 0 0.0
Judges 16 5.6 20 5.1 5 4.4 3 3.0 0 0.0
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 17/27
Opposing Counsel 20 7.0 10 2.5 4 3.5 3 3.0 0 0.0
Defendants 2 0.7 4 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total (Source of Bias)
287 100.0 394 100.0 114 100.0 100 100.0 30 100.0
Note: The totals refer to the number of types or sources of discrimination mentioned in the comments, not the number of respondents or comments.
* “NEC/Other” includes comments that fall under categories that are not elsewhere classified, and
comments referring to bias related to political affiliation and illness/disability as these were relatively small
categories.
The patterns in Table 4 suggest the significance of positionality in these accounts, as different race-
gender and sexuality groups report distinctive types of bias relating to their group membership. This
reflects broader research on perceptions of discrimination , which finds that women are significantly more
likely to perceive gender-based mistreatment than men, and that racial minorities are significantly more
likely to perceive race-based mistreatment than whites (McCord et al. 2018). Perhaps somewhat
surprisingly, women of color were most likely to describe experiences related to female gender bias,
followed by racial bias, age discrimination , and sexual harassment. White women were most likely to report
female gender bias, followed by sexual harassment, part-time/motherhood penalty, and age discrimination .
It is striking that white women were far more likely than women of color to comment on sexual harassment
and the motherhood penalty, possibly reflecting the complexities of how women of color experience
sexual harassment as a combination of sexual and racial harassment (Welsh et al. 2006).
Men of color were most likely to report racial bias, followed by unspecified hostility, and religious
discrimination . White men were most likely to report reverse gender discrimination , followed by religious
discrimination , reverse race discrimination , and age discrimination (most comments concerning age
discrimination were, in contrast to the legal definition of protected age groups, about being treated as
“too young”). LGBTQ respondents were most likely to report LGBTQ bias, followed by gender and racial bias.
The sources of discrimination are varied, from supervisors, to colleagues, judges, and clients. Across all
minority groups except LGBTQ and in all three waves, supervisors are the most commonly cited source of
discrimination (comprising about one-third of all reports), followed by clients and then colleagues. One
exception to this pattern is white men, who are most likely to report clients as the source of reverse
discrimination by gender or race.
Analyzing the Content of Comments
Based on our analysis of the full set of respondent comments, we identified a set of prominent themes
and selected quotes to illustrate them. For each quote we indicate the race, gender, and practice setting of
respondents, and the wave of the survey. In addition to the major themes, the quotes reveal three
important dimensions of how respondents perceive discrimination that are of theoretical interest: (1) how
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 18/27
frequently respondents report explicit, interactional types of discrimination or offer observations about the
effects of implicit or unconscious bias; (2) who respondents see as the perpetrators of discrimination ;
and (3) the contexts in which respondents report discrimination .
Comments Reflecting Group Animus
Across all three waves, the most common type of discrimination mentioned in the comments section is
discrimination based on one’s group membership. These experiences cover a broad range of interactions.
For example, women are singled out in a negative way because of their gender. Some of the comments
relate to judgements of women’s appearance, such as the following two experiences:
“Senior (male) HR person told me I needed to make my hair more attractive, wear more make-up and
perfume. Seriously.” (White woman, business inside counsel, wave 3)
“I also regularly receive comments about my appearance. No one comments on the appearance of my
male colleagues. Essentially, I am forever being assessed verbally with respect to things unrelated to my job
and this does not happen to my male colleagues.” (White woman, business inside counsel, wave 3)
Women also express that their voices are not heard and they are not taken seriously by others, simply
because of their gender:
“Women generally are not treated equally as their counterparts in the legal field—comments are ignored or
put down. When a man in the room makes the same comment, it is brilliant.” (White woman, business
inside counsel, wave 3)
“As a young female lawyer of color I am treated differently—sometimes by clients or by officers of court,
lawyers, judges, etc., demeaning comments like, ‘girl,’ ‘hysterical,’ or ‘bitchy.’ (Asian-American woman, public
interest organization, wave 1)
“Comments from a male partner about how I, as a blonde woman, would not be an appropriate choice to
send to a board of directors’ conference, and not getting brought to client pitches or generally into
networking circles.” (White woman, law firm of 251+, wave 3)
For members of minority groups, negative experiences are often racialized. Minority women report racial
bias as the second most common form of discrimination , and minority men as the most common form of
discrimination . These interactions signal to minority lawyers that they are considered outsiders, and lesser
lawyers, because of their ethnic or racial status .
“I have had situations where attorneys assumed I didn’t know as much because I wasn’t white, spoke down
to me as though I were a fool. If you’re in an environment where people are not sensitive, it’s demeaning. I
complained about a manner and attitude that an attorney had and I was just told he didn’t have social skills.
I experienced a lot of it and that’s why I started my own firm.” (African-American woman, solo practice, wave
2)
Many of these experiences are rooted in stereotypes that are based on the race, gender, or both of our
respondents:
“Being mistaken for an interpreter or clerk at court because I’m Latina and look Latina.” (Latina woman, solo
practice, wave 1)
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 19/27
“At my former job, I believe I was passed up for partnership. I was told I had more obstacles than another
employee because I was female, Mexican, I was gentle natured. I was there the longest of any employee.
Other comments were made, not about my ethnicity, but about minorities. My questions about partnership
were ignored. I was told that I was not assertive enough, that I was too nice. Before I left, they promoted an
associate who was a white male to partnership and he had been with the firm less time…. I thought I was
more competent.” (Latina woman, law firm of 2–20, wave 2)
“Client made racist comments to me (without understanding my racial background) regarding intellectual
inferiority of Blacks when I was defending him at a deposition.” (African-American man, law firm of 251+,
wave 2)
For LGBTQ lawyers, the most common form of discriminatory experience is derogatory references to their
sexual orientation:
“Heard the use of the word ‘faggy’ or ‘fags’ by colleagues before they knew I am gay.” (LGBTQ man, law
firm of 251+, wave 3)
“Someone made a really derogatory comment about my sexual orientation while on assignment.” (LGBTQ
woman, business nonlegal position, wave 3)
White men who were not LGBTQ report a different orientation to status -based discrimination . Their most
common comment refers to reverse gender or race discrimination , sometimes by clients, sometimes by
supervisors in their work organization.
“People sometimes perceive women as more desirable to handle divorce matters so I’ve actually been fired
by a couple of clients who wanted a woman to handle their case in order to ‘soften’ their image.” (White
man, law firm of 2–20, wave 3)
“Many minority in -house counsel are engaged in a form of reverse discrimination , requiring that only
minority attorneys work on various projects. I have had many projects taken away from me as a white male.”
(White man, law firm of 251+, wave 2)
Religious discrimination was the next most common type of discrimination white men reported.
“Boss expressed anger at request not to work on Saturday due to Sabbath. Said he thought request was
bullshit. I’m the only Jew in the office and feel he is discriminating against me in terms of work and
advancement.” (White man, law firm of 2–20, wave 1)
“I live in Utah. The legal community is mostly Mormon and I am not.” (White man, business inside counsel,
wave 1)
One of the ways in which group animus manifests is through exclusion from social activities. Workplace
interactions with both peers and superiors are key to the development of a lawyer’s career, and exclusion
from these networks—which are both social and which might also lead to mentoring, training, and career
advancement opportunities—contribute to the social isolation of women and minorities in the workplace
(Payne-Pikus et al. 2010). A man of color described “not being invited or included in socializing
opportunities with colleagues, race ethnicity related” (Asian-American male, law firm of 2–20, wave 1),
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 20/27
while a woman noted: “Female attorneys are not included in social activities by male partners. Most
partners are male and therefore women miss social interaction with superiors” (white woman, firm of 101–
250, wave 1).
Another recurring theme relating to exclusion is that members of minority groups experience their place at
work as one of an outsider, and as a token:
“No formal discrimination but there is definitely a boys club & the relationships the male bosses have with
their white male subordinates is much different than the relationships they have with the female
subordinates.” (Asian-American woman, nonprofit, wave 1)
“I believe the white male culture norm defines what is a good associate with regard to interpersonal skill.
Others [from different backgrounds] are seen perhaps subconsciously as different or not as capable.”
(Asian-American male, law firm of 251+, wave 1)
“I believe there is subconscious racial discrimination at my agency that impacts my overall ability to be
considered for the most senior level positions in the agency. While I have advanced to what is considered
a senior position, the most senior positions remain somewhat elusive. A combination of too few Black
attorneys being hired and a lack of familiarity or comfort with such attorneys may contribute to the
subconscious discrimination that results in the exclusion of candidates from the candidate pool
considered for the most senior positions.” (African-American woman, federal government, wave 3)
These comments describe how social exclusion works along gender and racial lines without overt
discrimination .
Sexual Harassment
Women attorneys provided accounts of the sexual harassment they faced at work. “As a female I
experience sexual harassment on a weekly basis from judges, male attorneys, and clients” (white woman,
solo practice, wave 3). Another recounts that:
“My male co-workers repeatedly referred to me as “honey,” “sugar,” and other inappropriate names, as well as
rude inappropriate sexually charged comments in my presence. I am the only female attorney in my office.
The male attorneys fraternize with each other and share the more interesting and important assignments
with each other.” (White woman, state government, wave 2)
A number of women recount that sex is often used as a weapon or quid pro quo for assignments:
“Supervisor withheld assignments based on refusal to provide sex favors” (white woman, education, wave
3); and “Boss made pass at me—I believe I missed desirable assignment because I turned him down” (white
woman, business inside counsel, wave 2). Sex is used as a weapon in other dynamics as well, with one
woman of color reporting that “when client was making sexual advancements, I rejected them and he
reported to the bar association that I wasn’t doing my job” (African-American woman, solo practice, wave
2).
Motherhood/Part-Time Penalty
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 21/27
Although our quantitative results did not find a significant effect of being a parent or having children on the
odds of reporting discrimination , the comments reveal that motherhood is a status that is used against
some women. Mothers experience this form of discrimination when their familial obligations are assumed
to interfere with their work role. Thus, while 5 percent of comments by women of color and 11 percent of
comments by white women concerned bias against mothers, no men of color and only one white male
comments on bias against being a parent.
The following comment demonstrates the ways in which motherhood acts as a status that is packaged
with a set of assumptions about women’s commitment to their work:
“I was told that as a new mother I would not be considered for an assignment that was very prestigious due
to travel requirements, although I was never asked if that would be an issue.” (White woman, federal
government, wave 3)
Women also report negative work outcomes as a result of their transition to motherhood, with some noting
penalties as a result of their maternity leave and others commenting that simply the status as parent is
enough for them to lose significant professional authority and career advancement.
“Had twins and now demonstrable drop in trust and treated like a first-year associate. Managing Partner
with whom I have worked for years now keeps me behind the scenes and won’t let me re-establish client
relations I had before I left for maternity leave.” (White woman, law firm of 2–20, wave 2)
“When I learned I was pregnant and advised the managing partner, a woman, she told me that I had ensured
that I was off of the partnership track for at least two years as a result of my choice to take maternity
leave.” (White woman, law firm of 21–100, wave 2)
“I have been passed over for opportunities for certain work because I am a single mother, and the
perception was that a man with a wife at home to attend to family obligations would be more available for
the project(s).” (White woman, law firm of 21–100, wave 3)
Intersection of Gender and Supervisory Status : A Largely Unarticulated Form of Bias
While the quantitative and qualitative findings both point to the main effects of ascriptive status on
perceptions of discrimination , the quantitative findings suggest that supervisory status is an additional
mechanism that appears to exacerbate the negative experience of women at work. The quantitative data
show that in wave 3, women in supervisory positions are significantly more likely to perceive
discriminatory experiences. As noted above, the results are entirely consistent with power-threat theory as
developed concerning sexual harassment by McLaughlin et al. (2012). That is, as women gain more power
in the workplace —such as assuming supervisory roles—they provoke sexist reactions from male workers.
But it could also be that having ascended to a supervisory position, these women are more aware of
discrimination .
In the comments of women attorneys in supervisory positions we found an interesting disjuncture: it is
rare to find an example of a woman who explicitly noted that her negative experiences stemmed from her
supervisory status . The following comments, both made by African-American women, were unusual for
their reference to their position: “I am a young, black attorney, so it’s not always easy to get support staff
who I supervise to follow my direction” (State government, wave 2). And:
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 22/27
“Certain of my colleagues not affording me the same respect or treating me in the same way as other
white males who have held my position or similar positions.” (African-American woman, education, wave 3)
Our interpretation is that women who are supervisors experience more discrimination than other women,
but they do not articulate their experience as a product of being targeted because they are a woman in a
position of authority. Typical of the quotes we see from women who were in supervisory positions at
wave 3 are those which focus on gender. For example:
“Forceful opinions from a woman are not tolerated nor treated equally as they would be coming from a man.
Lower pay offered than to a man in a similar or lesser position.” (Latino woman, state government, wave 3)
Uggen and Blackstone (2004, 83), who also find that female supervisors experience more discrimination ,
comment that “a woman’s authority does not immunize her from sexual harassment, at least within a
cultural context in which males hold greater power and authority.” Yet that women do not explicitly note
that their position of authority exacerbates their workplace experiences points to the fact that while it is
their gender that is targeted, additional mechanisms of workplace power are in play. The targets of
workplace discrimination may not recognize the intersectional character of the discrimination they face.
Just as women of color are somewhat more likely to report experiencing gender bias rather than racial bias,
women in supervisory positions are more likely to interpret their experience in terms of gender. Thus, to
gain better traction on our understanding of workplace discrimination , it is critical for researchers to pay
attention to the intersectional experiences of individuals—such as race and gender, or gender and authority
—and to investigate how (and whether) individuals perceive their intersectional status .
Clients Requesting Other Attorneys
The quantitative data suggested that for lawyers working in the private sector, having clients request
another attorney on a discriminatory basis is a common experience. While the quantitative data
emphasized the occurrence of this form of discrimination in the private sector, the comments
highlighted that lawyers in the public sector had similar experiences, and we provide examples of both
below.
“VP requested a male attorney handle matters in his area (whereas I had specific expertise in that area and
male attorney did not).” (Asian-American woman, legal services, wave 3)
“Male clients often get angry and call me names or request a male attorney. Sometimes they do the
opposite & try to flirt with me or ask me out.” (African-American woman, public defender, wave 3)
“Derogatory comment relating to race and request of no African-American counsel.” (African-American man,
law firm of 2–20, wave 3)
“Clients prefer American (white) people as their lawyers and are willing to pay more for their services….”
(Latina woman, solo practice, wave 3)
The comments of these respondents exemplify how men and women of color and white women perceive
bias by clients. In some instances the bias is explicit, but perhaps more often respondents draw the
inference of bias, as when respondents see clients ask for particular men to work on their matters even
though they are not as expert as the respondent.
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 23/27
The comments demonstrate how respondents saw hierarchies of race, gender, and sexuality operate in
the legal workplace . Together with our quantitative analyses of self-reports of discrimination , the
comments indicate that women and persons of color often are the targets of what they perceive as
discriminatory treatment. These groups experience anti-group animus, sexual harassment, penalties for
motherhood and part-time status , sexist reactions to women achieving supervisory status , and
discrimination by clients. The comments thus describe the various processes that enact discrimination
for young attorneys, processes that are not otherwise captured in our survey results. Whereas prominent
scholars of discrimination argue that overt acts of discrimination are now largely a thing of past,
replaced by more subtle, implicit forms of bias, many of the comments of these early career attorneys
describe very explicit forms of discriminatory behavior. Our results tend to confirm the arguments of
Sperino and Thomas (2017) and Berrey et al. (2017) that overt forms of discriminatory behavior persist in
American workplaces . Moreover, the comments illustrated why we did not see sectoral differences in the
composite measure of reported levels of discrimination : discriminatory processes operate in private law
firms, government employment, educational and nonprofit institutions, and in business.
What comes through in many of these comments by traditionally disadvantaged groups is the continuing
dominance of the traditionally advantaged group in the legal profession, white (presumably heterosexual)
men. In many of the quotes above, men are depicted as the perpetrators of discrimination as they
comment on women’s appearance, fail to take women’s comments seriously, exclude women and minorities
from important meetings and social events, and perpetuate a white male “boys club.” In other comments,
the traditionally disadvantaged experience discrimination because the white heterosexual man is held out
as the model of the superior lawyer, who has a wife at home to take care of family responsibilities; who is
seen as a better courtroom performer in contrast to an Asian-American or Latino attorney, who are seen as
too passive; who clients seek out as more presentable to a corporate board or able to stand up to
aggressive opposing counsel; who commands respect as a supervisor when women and persons of color
do not; and whose heterosexuality fits in perfectly with the aggression and dominance that LGBTQ men are
assumed not to embody. Many of the quotes refer to a white male as a comparator, a person not in a
protected group who receives unwarranted benefits in comparison to a person in a protected group. It is
the white man who gets the promotion, gets the higher pay, and gets the client rather than the
respondent, whose qualifications and seniority are overlooked.
DISCUSSION: THE PREVALENT, PERSISTENT, YET VARIABLE CHARACTER OF ASCRIPTIVE HIERARCHIES
The quantitative analysis of self-reports of discrimination demonstrates that perceived discrimination is
prevalent and persistent. Women, and especially women of color, men of color, and LGBTQ attorneys are
substantially more likely to perceive that they have been the target of biased treatment than their white
male counterparts. This pattern holds through all three waves corresponding to different stages of the
respondents’ careers. And it holds across employment contexts: in the public sector as well as in private
practice; and in large organizations and small ones. And it holds despite controlling for a full range of other
independent variables that might affect these perceptions.
When we turn to the qualitative comments of respondents about the nature of the negative experience
they reported, we find that members of different ascriptive groups experience negative treatment that
reflects how distinct hierarchies operate across various work settings. Women and persons of color
describe the bias they experience from supervisors, clients, and other actors. These experiences are always
described as a burden. Sometimes these experiences are described as limiting concrete career
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 24/27
opportunities. For women, especially white women, the comments reveal gender bias, sexual harassment,
or a motherhood penalty. For women of color and LGBTQ women, race or sexual orientation bias is often
mixed with gender bias.
Interestingly, the qualitative comments sometimes are not consistent with the quantitative results. In our
multivariate models we found no significant main effects for having children or interaction effects for
women who have children reporting higher levels of perceived discrimination . Yet in the comments,
several women spoke about the motherhood or part-time penalty. We found the opposite relationship
between comments and numbers for female supervisors. While we found a significant effect for the
interaction of supervisory status and female—a confirmation of power-threat theory—women, with a few
exceptions, did not comment on the link between gender bias and supervisory status .
We do not view the differences between the quantitative and qualitative findings as problematic as these
data are measuring distinct but related phenomena. Not enough women who are parents report they are a
target of negative treatment to register in our statistical models, but some women do describe a
motherhood penalty. And while female supervisors are significantly more likely to report negative treatment
than other respondents, they very seldom report it as the combined effect of their status and their gender.
More broadly, the quantitative and qualitative results are complementary. The qualitative comments speak
of relationships and of identity in context. They thus support a relational and contextual framework for
understanding perceived workplace discrimination as suggested by Roscigno (2007) and Hirsh and
coauthors (Hirsh and Lyons 2010; Hirsh and Kornrich 2008). But they also support scholars who give priority
to ascriptive hierarchies, such as Feagin (1991, 2000) and Bonilla-Silva (2012) who assert that racial
hierarchies are reinforced through everyday interactions in multiple contexts. The qualitative comments
reveal theoretically important variation in the nature of the bias respondents perceive. Many comments
suggest discrimination that is overt, indicated by the words of managing partners and clients or a
dramatic change in treatment after getting pregnant or having a child. In other comments respondents
reflect on more subtle, systemic biases they see operating in their organization, which are more consistent
with theories of structural or implicit bias in the workplace . Taken as a whole, these data provide a
valuable corrective to scholarship that argues that implicit bias is now the dominant form that
discrimination takes, but they also indicate there is substantial variation in the discriminatory treatment
respondents observe and experience.
CONCLUSION
In this Article we have presented data from a national sample of lawyers about their perceptions of
whether they have been the target of discrimination in the legal workplace . While these are self-reports
and therefore subject to attribution error, we find striking differences in levels of perceived discrimination
along the lines of race, gender, and sexual orientation. In the most recent wave of the survey (conducted
in 2012–2013) over one-half of African-American women reported being the target of discrimination in
their workplace in the last two years, as did 43 percent of African-American men, between 29 percent and
45 percent of women in other racial and ethnic groups, and 30 percent of LGBTQ attorneys. Multivariate
analyses that controlled for several other variables did not explain away these ascriptive patterns.
Qualitative comments describing these discriminatory experiences largely supported the quantitative
results, gave content to the nature of bias that disadvantaged groups perceive, but also identified some
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 25/27
disjunctures between quantitative results and individual perceptions. Interestingly, the comments also
suggest that much of the bias in the workplace is overt in character, which contradicts a common
narrative that most contemporary discrimination operates through unconscious or implicit bias.
It is important to recognize some of the limitations of this research. First, it is based on self-reports, which
necessarily involve subjective judgments. The literature on attribution bias documents perceptual
differences across race and gender groups, and these no doubt contribute to the patterns we observe. But
research on employment discrimination claims suggests that there is often subjectivity in defining
workplace events as discrimination . Even in instances where formal claims have been filed, there are
conflicting, contested constructions of what is fair treatment in the workplace (Berrey et al. 2017). To the
extent we have captured perceptions of discrimination , the race, gender, and sexuality differences we
report should be taken seriously. Second, one of the great strengths of our method is also a weakness: we
posed standardized questions about negative treatment, which allowed us to estimate rates of perceiving
discrimination , and we asked for short descriptions of those experiences, which allowed us to gather large
numbers of accounts of these experiences. But we could only scratch the surface of respondents’
experiences. In -depth interviewing is necessary to examine their perceptions of workplace bias more fully.
Third, while possessing data from three waves of surveys allows a unique perspective on when bias occurs
in lawyers’ careers, we only have data on one cohort of lawyers, those passing the bar in 2000. Given
dramatic changes in the market for legal services following the financial collapse of 2008 and its effects
on the job prospects of more recent law graduates, it is fair to ask whether our results generalize to other
cohorts. Yet nothing in our results suggests our findings are unique to one cohort.
With these limitations in mind, our results pose a serious challenge to the legal profession. In the
perceptions of lawyers, we have found evidence of entrenched hierarchies of race, gender, and sexual
orientation. Given the breadth of perceived discrimination , how do leaders of the organized bar, law
firms, corporate law departments, and government agencies address this problem? Perhaps the first step
is to recognize the scope and character of the problem. Rather than accept the narrative that all
discrimination is subtle and unintended, it is important to see that there are identifiable actors engaging in
identifiable misbehavior. It is necessary to design systems of accountability in the workplace to detect
and correct this misbehavior.
Second, the #metoo movement suggests the importance of grassroots action in the workplace by
targeted groups to raise awareness about and take action against discriminatory behavior. Other kinds of
efforts to address these problems, while laudable and increasingly popular, have not been demonstrated to
be effective. The most common response has been to mandate training about sexual harassment and
workplace bias. Yet training programs appear not to have advanced diversity goals in organizations, and in
fact may be counterproductive in some circumstances (Kalev et al. 2006; Edelman 2016). Other efforts
focus on moving women and minorities into positions of power in organizations (Dhir 2015). Experiments
are currently underway to test the effects of requiring a minimum number of women on the compensation
and promotion committees of law firms (Flores 2017; Weiss 2017). While research suggests that greater
representation of women on the corporate boards and in the corporate law departments of clients
increases the chances for women to be promoted to partner (Phillips 2005), Wallace and Kay found that
having women in positions of leadership in law firms did not enhance the informational and emotional
support women received in those firms (2012).
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 26/27
In this Article we have begun to develop a more comprehensive understanding of perceived discrimination
by race, gender, and sexuality in the American legal profession. Further systematic work is needed to
examine the effects of perceived discrimination on the career trajectories of lawyers. Do those lawyers
who perceive that they are the targets of bias leave their employer or even leave the legal profession all
together? Do they express lower levels of satisfaction with their decision to become a lawyer? Does the
health and workplace performance of these lawyers suffer as a result of discrimination ? These are
questions best addressed with longitudinal data. The answers to these questions are of concern not just
for the legal profession but for society more broadly. To the extent that lawyers of different races, genders,
and sexual orientations are exposed to discrimination that limits their career development, it will erode the
capacity of the legal profession to provide equal representation to all groups in society. Research
suggests that communities served by a more racially and ethnically diverse legal profession experience
smaller racial disparities in sentencing outcomes (King, Johnson, and McGeever 2010). The fate of equal
justice may be tied to the fate of equal opportunity in lawyer careers.
1 Details about response rates and representativeness across three waves of the study are available at
Dinovitzer et al. (2014). In each of three waves, a response rate above 50 percent was achieved for those
contacted. In wave 3, only respondents who had responded to at least one previous wave were included in
the target sample. Nonresponse analyses of wave 3 data based on internet searches did not find
significant differences on bar status and employment as lawyers. In wave 3, respondents and
nonrespondents did not differ on urban or rural location, law school rank, or practice setting. Michelson
(2017) found that the demographic profile of AJD respondents in terms of age, sex, race, and ethnicity
was similar to a parallel cohort of JD graduates sampled by the National Survey of College Graduates.
2 While waves 2 and 3 explicitly provide a timeframe of the “last two years,” the wave 1 question did not
include this prompt. However since the wave 1 survey was administered two years into the respondent’s
career we were asking about a similar two-year time period.
3 We did not include “class” or socioeconomic background in the questions about negative treatment.
Respondents could have mentioned class bias in the “specify other” field, just as they mentioned other
forms of bias described in Table 4 below.
4 Researchers have used different survey approaches to elicit data on perceptions of discrimination . Hirsh
and Lyons (2010, 280) asked about “being discriminated against at work.” Collins et al. (2017, 1648) asked
attorneys “if they felt they had been treated unfairly in negotiations with another attorney because of their
race, gender, or age.” For each basis of unfairness the attorney could reply “no, yes rarely, yes occasionally,
or yes often.” McLaughlin et al. (2012), who focused on self-reports of sexual harassment, used an
elaborate battery of questions. They asked whether respondents perceived that they were sexually
harassed (a subjective measure), but then also asked about whether they had experienced specific types of
behaviors (more objective measures).
5 While the AJD surveys used the term “LGBT,” we use “LGBTQ” herein to reflect current commonly
accepted terminology.
6 The AJD survey asked respondents to self-report their race/ethnicity. Since respondents were able to
select more than one racial/ethnic category, we priority coded these data in the following order: African
American, Asian American, Native American, Latino, white. To create the race/gender variables, we
4/20/2021 Perceiving Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in the Legal Workplace - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/2392020050/9FAE6418C79D4A43PQ/4?accountid=14275 27/27
classified respondents as “white” if that was the only category they selected. We included all others as men
or women of color.
7 The female supervisor variable varies between wave 1 and waves 2 and 3. In wave 1, this variable equals
one if a respondent is female and reports that over the total life of legal matters she worked on, she was
“assigning and/or supervising the work of others.” In the next two waves, the female supervisor variable
equals one if a respondent was female and answered “yes” to a question asking whether she supervises
anyone on her job. We did not have this more comprehensive question in wave 1, but we tested the first
variable formulation in our wave 2 and 3 models and there was no change between the two female
supervisor variables.
8 The predicted probabilities were calculated using the results from the regression model predicting our
composite measure of discrimination , with all other variables held at their means.
9 We conducted several analyses to test the robustness of our results. We ran separate models by sector.
Although we found a few differences from the overall model, no notable differences emerged. We also ran
models that did not include the race-gender variables. We obtained results for the other independent
variables that were similar to those we see in the overall model.
© 2019 American Bar Foundation
Tennessee Electronic Library
Copyright © 2021 ProQuest LLC.
