Running head: GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE
1
BUSI 342-001: Human Resource Management
Final Paper: Gender Discrimination in the Workplace
Shania Colyn, Benjamin Conner, Tyler Creese, Kevin Cuartas
17 April 2018
Respectfully submitted to: Professor Colleen McLaughlin
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE
2
Abstract
Gender discrimination greatly impacts society in all aspects today. This paper examines the issue
of gender discrimination from multiple angles. First, gender discrimination can be looked at
through a legal perspective. Title VII can help provide laws, but it fails to cover all aspects of
discrimination such as the LGBTQ+ community. However, the government is not the only entity
responsible for regulating gender discrimination. Organizations also must be aware of the
strategies and responsibilities when dealing with gender discrimination. This responsibility
continues to fall on lower levels of leadership such as managers. Managers are the first defense
against gender discrimination and can greatly impact the company culture regarding these issues.
Whether perceived or tangible, gender discrimination can negatively impact stakeholders,
employees, and resources. As Christians, gender discrimination is a sin against God’s people and
people should regularly push to help the oppressed and hurting.
Keywords: gender, discrimination, sex, workplace, harassment, transgender, equality
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE
3
Introduction
Gender discrimination is the unfair treatment of others based on one's gender or sex. In the
workplace, this can be unfair policies, practices, or rules that result in disadvantages for one sex
compared to another. Because of these practices, organizations fail to follow good legal and
ethical practices (Keinert-Kisin, 2016). The United States government and Supreme Court help
to clarify the laws and regulation regarding discrimination in the workplace. However, these
standards do not simply fall on the government. Organizations and managers must be constantly
analyzing their policies and procedures to be proactive in preventing discrimination. This will
help impact the employees and draw talent for all occupations. Although gender discrimination
in America is not as prevalent in the workplace as in previous years, it is still a major issue facing
organizations today. Therefore, how organizations and the United States government respond to
this issue can greatly impact organizations and employees.
Legal Concerns about Gender Discrimination for Employers
Today, organizations must be observant of every move they make in terms of employment
and termination to prevent lawsuits based on discrimination (Mathis, Jackson, & Valentine,
2017). From policies to employment rules, organizations must analyze their policies to help
decrease their probability of a lawsuit. The Title VII amendment of the Civil Rights act of 1964
helps to provide guidelines for these rules (2017). Because of this, organizations look at different
cases that provide precedent and look to the Title VII and EEOC to help provide an adequate
analysis of these issues (2017). However, Title VII fails to address all issues faced by
organizations in today’s changing society. For example, the transgender phenomena is an issue
that perplexes organizations today.
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE
4
Transgender is used as a word to describe someone who identifies as the opposite gender at
some circumstance (Durio, 2016). This term includes transsexuals, transvestites, and any other
thing falling under this definition (2016). Treatment may consist of different stages which
include hormone therapy, life experience, and gender confirmation surgery (Corradi, 2015).
Many employees experience discrimination during or after announcing their intention of
transitioning or a change of appearance has occurred (Durio, 2016). According to the National
Center for Transgender Equality, 25% have experienced job lose and 75% have experienced
some sort of discrimination in the workplace (2016).
An employee has two possible routes when hoping to make a Title VII claim which are
pretext and mixed-motive (Durio, 2016). Under a pretext framework, a plaintiff must prove four
things: they fall under a protected class, they are qualified, they were exposed to adverse action,
and similar individuals would be treated more favorably (2016). In a mixed-motive framework, a
plaintiff must prove two things: their protected classification was an employment factor, and the
employee was subjected to adverse employment actions (2016).
Looking at this issue, organizations and society looks to the courts to help provide guidance.
Two cases can be seen in the Supreme Court that have helped to set precedent for this issue. In
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, Hopkins was overlooked for a promotion due to her masculine
appearance, despite her great performance and ability to land large contracts (Durio, 2016). She
was told by her superiors to appear more feminine to increase her probability for promotion
(2016). The courts ruled in Hopkins' favor due to sex stereotyping which is discrimination based
on the people failing to adhere to societal norms of masculine or feminine (2016). Because of
this interpretation, transgender employees attempt to argue this when filing lawsuits (2016).
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE
5
Because they do not fall under the societal norms, they may fall under sex stereotyping which is
grounds for legal action. Christians are put in a position regarding their own theological stances.
As a Christian, one is supposed to submit to local authorities and government as seen in
Romans 13:1-14 (English Standard Version). In Genesis, God created man and woman. Because
of this, many Christians have a moral issue against the transgender community (Genesis 1:27,
ESV). However, to navigate today’s society, Christians must be conscience of their own personal
bias and prevent lawsuits due to gender discrimination. Remembering that all creatures are
created in God’s image, the unjust treatment of others should personally offend Christians. In
Romans 14, Christians can see that one should not persecute another over opinion (Romans 14:
1-4). Rather, Christians should welcome them and encourage them to turn from sin, but should
not pass judgement on their actions. For ultimately, there is only one Master who is able to pass
judgement on sinners.
Gender Discrimination Strategic Organizational Implications and Responsibilities
Organizations have a priority to prevent gender discrimination in their companies and
organizations communicate this through their strategy. First, gender discrimination in the
workplace can cause many implications on organizational strategy such as creating a negative
reputation of the business, loss of productivity and profit, and failure to meet long term
objectives. When gender discrimination takes place within an organization, the organizations’
strategy and reputation are both internally and externally tainted. With the organization’s
reputation at stake, losses in productivity and profits are the consequences. In addition, women in
the workplace who are being treated as lesser will have lower motivation; thus, a company’s
performance decreases (Reeves, 2010). Failing to utilize all the talent women provide and
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE
6
treating them unequally in the company will lower profits results in long-term objectives and
organizational strategies being unsustainable (2010).
To combat these negative implications of gender discrimination, organizations are held
responsible for establishing and enforcing strategies to promote gender equality. The first
organizational strategy to mitigate gender discrimination in the workplace is through affirmative
action. Affirmative action is organizations proactively seeking to increase the amount of
minorities in their companies to compensate for previous acts of discrimination (Mathis et al.,
2017). An organizational Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) can be set in place to internally hire
minority individuals, in this case women (2017). Organizations can also incorporate and
implement gender equality in their overarching strategic mission. According to Gilles (2015),
presenting that gender equality is a natural component of the organization’s mission, the
awareness of gender equality as a core organizational value will increase. In addition, Gilles
(2015) states that incorporating gender mainstreaming in organizational strategy is not only the
moral choice, but also the economic choice.
Biblical principles can be applied to the topic of gender discrimination. In Scripture, the
intentionality of God’s mission to reestablish the position of women to that of equality with men
is revealed multiple times. For instance, God sent His one and only son to be born of a virgin and
Jesus revealed himself after His resurrection first to women (John 20:1- 16, ESV). Also, women
were included in His expanded group of disciples (Mark 15:41, ESV). God desires mankind to
use both gender’s talents and abilities to help achieve His strategic mission as well. This is
evident in Romans 12:3-8 (ESV) where it discusses how everyone, male and female, have
different functions and gifts given to us by God’s grace to use in serving, teaching, giving, or
leading. God created Eve to help Adam in fulfilling his God given mission in Genesis 1:28 to
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE
7
“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it…” (ESV). Overall, God’s strategy for
the world and mankind is to support one another, regardless of gender, and this should be
imitated in organization’s strategies to promote equality.
Managerial Implications and Responsibilities
Despite there being an increase in research of organizational practices affecting equality, it is
still less understood how manager to employee relations affect discrimination (Castilla, 2011).
According to Castilla (2011) there are three main managerial mechanisms that potentially
influence the assessment of employee performance. The first mechanism is the managerial
network influence between current and former managers. The proceeding mechanism is
manager-manager homophily, which suggests that similar managers have a high chance of
concluding similar assessments. Lastly, manager-employee homophily, suggests that managers
hold a positive view and are more inclined to favor employees of their same gender (Castilla,
2011). According to Castilla’s (2011) conclusion, manager-manager homophily and managerial
network influence have a greater potential to affect the evaluation of employee performance
(2011). Thus, indicating that managers and leaders ought to divert their attention from manager-
employee homophily to horizontal homophily and managerial network influence (2011).
Continuing, Castilla also found that when the manager and the employee are both male this
employee has a 20.7% higher chance of receiving the top performance rating and a $103 higher
expected bonus as compared to when the employee is female (Castilla, 2011). With this disparity
and clear distinction in the workplace, one ought to apply fairer practices in accordance with the
law. Therefore, leaders and managers ought to give up any practice of impurity, to instead walk
righteously and impartial to all (Ephesians 4:17-24).
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE
8
Managerial discrimination possesses a heavy direct and indirect effect on the mental health
and job satisfaction of workers in the workplace (Wood, Braeken, & Niven 2013). Managers
ought to be sensitive in the way they apply policies in their organizations. Policies that are not
effective in hindering discrimination may precede further fault in the organization (Wood et al.,
2013). In other words, organizations that fail to efficiently realize and address discrimination,
such as gender discrimination, usually have other faulty organizational policies. This parallels
the biblical proverb that a proud spirit comes before a fall (Proverbs 16:18). To avoid such fall,
organizations ought to intrinsically evaluate all aspects of their internal policies to ensure proper
and legal practices.
Sources of discrimination should be challenged without hesitation, to ensure that all types of
discrimination are limited for the betterment of the workplace (Wood et al., 2013). This feasible
objective may be accomplished through a more in-depth selection process, improved training and
role-modeling and a higher level of transparency (Wood et al., 2013). However, the implication
for managers and leaders, according to the authors of Discrimination and Weil-Being in
Organizations is to treat discrimination directly to minimize extraneities (2013).
In recent times, organizations have transitioned to being more dedicated and competent in
corporate responsibility (Van Cranenburgh, Liket, & Roome, 2013). Along with this managers
and leaders of organizations are becoming more liable to promote a proper work environment. To
carry out this objective, managers and leaders have the responsibility to consider gender
discrimination. Furthermore, organizational leaders can lead and influence effective legislative
changes to fight against workplace injustices to promote the American ideal that all mankind is
created equal (Martinez, Ruggs, Hebl, & Binggeli, 2013).
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE
9
Impact on Employees, Resources, and Stakeholders
Furthermore, gender discrimination also has a very adverse effect on employees,
resources, and stakeholders (Cortina, Kabat-Farr, Leskinen, Huerta, & Magley, 2013). Often
even the perception of gender discrimination negatively affects employees (2013). An employee
that perceives that a company participates in gender discrimination often feels isolated from the
rest of the company (Bobbitt-Zeher, 2011). This leads to a plethora of negative consequences,
including a high turnover ratio and reduced productivity (Cortina et al., 2013). Very few
employees will work somewhere that they do not feel valued. Therefore, gender discrimination
results in a rotating work force and an unstable company culture. Furthermore, a company that
allows the perception of gender discrimination to exist within their company produces an
environment that does not serve the employees in the way that they deserve (Bobbitt-Zeher,
2011). Employees want to feel like they are all judged by their actions and not gender, sadly this
is not always the case. A common form of gender bias or discrimination is the allotment of new
work outside of an employee’s job description (Cortina et al., 2013). This often occurs when a
manger assigns a task that fits with a traditional gender role in society (2013). This would be like
always asking a male employee to take out the trash simply because of his gender and no other
reason. While this is a simple example, this type of bias and discrimination can be an extremely
big problem.
Additionally, gender discrimination has a very adverse effect on company resources
(Bobbitt-Zeher, 2011). One of a company’s best assets is their employees (2011). When a
company avoids the input of a group of people this robs them of intellectual diversity and makes
them operate at a below optimal level. Furthermore, as previously stated gender discrimination
causes people to quit and leave their jobs resulting in increased training expenses. This increase
in expenses is inefficient and can be easily avoided by preventing gender discrimination.
Furthermore, gender discrimination also greatly impacts a company’s stakeholders
(Cavalcanti, & Tavares, 2016). Perceived or actual gender discrimination causes one’s company
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE
10
to be inefficient and operate at a lower rate (2016). This naturally impacts the bottom line.
Furthermore, gender discrimination can greatly impact consumer relations (2016). If consumers
hear that a business regularly practices gender discrimination, then this could cause a large
decrease in business. Furthermore, biblically, gender discrimination is outside of God’s plan and
design. In John 3:16, God basically outlines that Christ died for all regardless of gender,
ethnicity, or socio-economic background. Therefore, to follow God’s will companies must avoid
this sin.
Conclusion
As seen gender discrimination is an issue that should be addressed by all levels of business
which include government, organizations, and management. These levels impact and shape
organizational culture and employee dynamic in the workplace. Through positive organizational
and managerial leadership, a decrease in discrimination will have a positive impact through
increasing profit, decreased employee turnover, and increased efficiency. According to Proverbs
6:16-17, scrutinizing others through a place of arrogance or a demeaning attitude is a detestable
action in the eyes of the Lord. The Lord views the thought of partiality as an abomination.
Therefore, utilizing this benchmark, sources of discrimination should be challenged directly to
help decrease the inequality in today’s society.
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE
11
References
Bobbitt-Zeher, D. (2011). Gender discrimination at work: Connecting gender stereotypes,
institutional policies, and gender composition of workplace. Gender and Society, 25(6),
764-786. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23212199
Castilla, E. (2011). Bringing managers back in: Managerial influences on workplace inequality.
American Sociological Review, 76(5), 667-694. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23019215
Cavalcanti, T., & Tavares, J. (2016). The output cost of gender discrimination: A model‐based
macroeconomics estimate. The Economic Journal, 126(590), 109-134. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ecoj.12303
Corradi, R. (2015). Transgender delusion. First Things, (256), 17-19. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docvi 1717977820?
accountid=12085
Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. (2013). Selective
incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of
Management, 39(6), 1579-1605. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311418835
Durio, L. (2016). Title vii and transgender employees: The transition away from the traditional
concepts of sex discrimination in the workplace. South Texas Law Review 58(2), 223-252.
Retrieved from
http://rx9vh3hy4r.search.serialssolutions.com/
Gilles, K. (2015). Pursuing gender equality inside and out: Gender mainstreaming in
international organizations. Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved from
https://www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/gender-mainstreaming.pdf
Keinert-Kisin, C. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and discrimination. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-29158-1
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE
12
Martinez, L., Ruggs, E., Sabat, I., Hebl, M., & Binggeli, S. (2013). The Role of Organizational
Leaders in Sexual Orientation Equality at Organizational and Federal Levels. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 28(4), 455-466. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24709880
Mathis, R. L., Jackson, J. H., & Valentine, S. R. (2017). Human resource management. Boston,
MA: Cengage Learning.
Reeves, M. (2010). Women in business: Theory, case studies, and legal challenges. Retrieved
from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=515402
Van Cranenburgh, K., Liket, K., & Roome, N. (2013). Management responses to social activism
in an era of corporate responsibility: A case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3),
497-513. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/42921244
Wood, S., Braeken, J., & Niven, K. (2013). Discrimination and well-being in organizations:
Testing the differential power and organizational justice theories of workplace
aggression. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(3), 617-634. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/42002006
