INEQUALITY IN ORGANIZATIONS: STEREOTYPING, DISCRIMINATION, AND
LABOR LAW EXCLUSIONS
Purpose. The purpose of this article is to highlight inequalities created and sustained through
gendered, raced, and classed organizational processes and practices using Joan Acker’s work as a
lens for perceiving the mechanisms that support such practices. We use home health aide work
as an example of how U.S. labor laws and court decisions create and support disadvantages for
workers who are largely economically-disadvantaged and often women of color.
Design/methodology/approach. The article considers processes of inequality based on
demographic characteristics and the resulting stereotyping, discrimination, and gender, race, and
class inequalities.
Findings. Multiple intersecting processes of inequality exist in organizations, manifested in
practices of stereotyping and discrimination for some job applicants and workers and
advantageous positioning for certain others.
Research limitations/implications. Future research should more specifically consider the
effects of multiple processes of inequality on individuals’ organizational experiences and the
intersections of gender, race, and class (as well as other markers such as ethnicity, sexual
orientation, and disability) in organizational practices.
Practical implications. Managers and human resources practitioners should be aware of the
effects of processes related to the intersectionality of gender, race, and class and work to
eliminate resulting stereotyping and other discriminatory organizational practices linked to these
processes in their organizations.
Social implications. Identification of processes of inequality resulting in stereotyping and
discrimination may help reduce them, thus increasing opportunities for work, wages, and
benefits, and reducing poverty for members of the most devalued groups.
Originality/value. This research contributes to the literature on the intersecting nature of
gender, race, and class-based inequalities and on human resources decision-making in
organizations.
Key Words. Race, Class, Gender, Diversity, Discrimination, Home Health Care
2
INEQUALITY IN ORGANIZATIONS: STEREOTYPING, DISCRIMINATION, AND
LABOR LAW EXCLUSIONS
More than 25 years have passed since the focused study of gender and diversity in
organizations began in management and related fields1. Much of that research documents
working women’s experiences with the glass ceiling and walls, discrimination and sexual
harassment, sex segregation, and wage inequity regardless of where in the world they work (Bell,
2012; Muli, 1995; Shaffer et al., 2000). Women in the United States earn less than 80% to the
dollar that men earn, and while women occupy many “management and professional” positions
and are about half of the U.S. workforce, they are only about 13% of executive officers and 6%
of top earners (Catalyst, 2009). Experiences of women of color reveal even more dismal
outcomes than those of white women. Although women of every race and ethnicity often work
in segregated jobs, in the U.S., black and Hispanic women are more segregated, work in lower
status jobs, and have lower earnings than white women (Acker, 2006a; Amott and Matthaei,
1991; Cocchiara, Bell, and Berry, 2006; Reskin, 1999). White women are most likely to be
secretaries or elementary school teachers, while African-American women are most likely to be
nurses’ aides or cashiers. Women from Central America are most likely to be household
cleaners or janitors (Reskin, 1999). Multiple structural elements in society contribute to
differential access for women and men and for Whites and non-Whites to the education,
experiences, and necessary networks that provide access to management or white-collar
professional jobs (Acker, 2006a, 2006b; Anderson and Collins, 2004; Reskin, 1999). These
structural elements and processes precede and exacerbate job segregation practices in specific
work settings.
1
The Women in Management division of the Academy of Management received division status in December, 1983 and became
the Gender and Diversity in Organizations division in April, 1998.
3
Organizing practices resulting in the stratification of some people in jobs with high pay,
opportunities, power, and status and others in jobs with low pay, opportunities, power, and status
are produced and reproduced in organizations (Acker, 2006b; Reskin and Roos, 1990;
Tomaskovic-Devey, 1993). These organizing practices are linked to perceived differences in
suitability for certain types of jobs based on gender, race, or socio-economic class-related factors
such as family background, education, social status, and types of work performed. In her
theoretical framework of inequality in work organizations, Joan Acker conceptualizes the
complex, ongoing, persistent inequality-producing practices and meanings within organizations
as “inequality regimes” (2006a, 2006b, 2009). Inequality regimes undergird systematic
disparities in organizational outcomes, including opportunities for promotion, interesting work,
benefits, pay and other monetary rewards, and job security (Acker, 2006b, p. 443). Processes
that produce gender, race, class categorizations and other groupings such as ethnicity, age, sexual
orientation, and disability are dependent upon assigning persons to these categories and acting
upon the categorizations. Acker argues that in these processes are “overt decisions and
procedures that control, segregate, exclude, and construct hierarchies” (Acker, 1992, p. 568)
based on the categories.
A key facet of Acker’s analysis of inequality is that processes involving gender, race, and
class are mutually produced. That is, class practices between people have race and gender
components, gender practices are raced and classed, and so on. The concepts of gender and race
almost always involve unequal social and economic privileges and power between people based
on their sex, skin color and other physical characteristics. We agree with Acker’s argument that
class also matters in society and organizations. While gender and, to a lesser extent, race have
received a great deal of research attention in the large and growing volume of “gender and
4
diversity” related literature, studies in which class is an explicit focus remain very hard to find.
In this article, we highlight how class is also an important factor in the workings of
organizational inequalities and suggest that class has been understudied in the management field.
We propose that the complex productions of gender, race, and class in organizational practices
must be considered when studying interactions and causes of, and effects upon the lives of
women and men in organizations (2006a, 2006b, 2009). Through examination of extant
research, we aim to show how greater consideration of Acker’s conceptualization of mutuallyreinforcing processes of inequality is useful in understanding the persistence of inequality in
organizations.
We first define key terms, acknowledging their complexities and socially-constructed
meanings. Next, we examine manifestations of gendered, raced, and classed practices in human
resources (HR) activities (e.g., selection, job placement). We integrate research findings related
to stereotyping and discrimination with Acker’s work on inequality regimes, showing how they
work to ensure that certain workers are excluded from organizations or assigned to those jobs
viewed as appropriate for them. Next, we use home health aide work—low wage work typically
performed by poor women (often of color)—as an example of how inequality regimes operate
and are maintained and bolstered by labor laws and judicial decisions supportive of such
hierarchies. We conclude with recommendations for researchers interested in the study of the
intersections of gender, race, and class in organizational processes.
Gender, Race, Class, and Inequality in Human Resource Practices
According to Acker (2006a), gender, race, and class are socially and politically
constructed, powerful differentiators with economic components. “Gender” almost always
involves unequal economic and social power between men and women, with men having the
5
most power. “Race” refers to “definitions of skin color and other physical characteristics”
reflecting histories of colonization, slavery, immigration, and migration (Acker, 2006a, p.
6). Lastly, “class” is “structured by production, market, and/or occupational systems” (2006a, p.
6). Other researchers (Anderson and Collins, 2004; hooks, 2000; Weber, 2004) concur that class
is pervasive in society through relations that differentially structure access to resources.
Common markers of class structures and processes are education, income, wealth, and
occupation and, importantly, access to them. The connections between the experiences of
differentiated groups of people and the practices of organizations that produce inequities in
opportunities and outcomes based on gender, race, and class have been the focus of much of Joan
Acker’s work. She highlights work organizations because much of the societal inequality that
exists originates in them and workplaces are the target for many attempts, some successful and
some not, to change patterns of inequality (Acker, 2006b).
In her concept of “inequality regimes,” Acker reiterates a theme emphasized in earlier
works—that of mutually-produced inequalities with multiple intersecting dimensions. Inequality
regimes are “loosely interrelated practices, processes, actions, and meanings that result in and
maintain class, gender, and racial inequalities within particular organizations” (Acker, 2009, p.
201) While the bases for inequalities can vary, gender, race, and class processes, in intersecting
manifestations, are usually present. Studies in the organizational literature may focus on one or
another of these, but they are not commonly studied as mutually-reinforcing processes.
HR practices involved in producing and maintaining inequality are apparent in Acker’s
definition of inequality:
…systematic disparities between participants in power and control over goals,
resources, and outcomes; workplace decisions such as how to organize work;
opportunities for promotion and interesting work; security in employment and
6
benefits; pay and other monetary rewards; respect; and pleasure in work and work
relations (2006b, p.443).
Many of the terms used in Acker’s description of inequality in organizations are those found in
HR research, texts, and practices. For example, the “organization of work,” “pay,” “monetary
rewards” “security,” and “benefits” are clear HR topics. Inequality in HR practices
disadvantages those without power—more likely to be women, people of color, and others who
have access to few economic, social, political or cultural resources. Acker emphasizes that the
inequalities evident in the persistent gender wage gap and the sex segregation of jobs occur in
organizations and undergird gender and racial and ethnic differences in poverty that exist in
society (Acker, 2006a).
One way in which organizations produce inequality is through markedly different pay,
benefits, and levels of flexibility and autonomy within jobs for some groups of people. In many
of the lower status and paid jobs held predominantly by women and racial minorities in the U.S.,
flexibility that would allow interruptions to attend to needs outside the immediate purview of
work is limited. Therefore, a woman could be disadvantaged in multiple ways: If she worked
part-time in order to have the flexibility to care for children, as many women do, the job would
most likely provide fewer benefits including coverage for medical care which, ironically, she
might need even more. In the U.S., women are less likely to have access to flexible work
schedules than men and Blacks and Hispanics are less like to have flexible schedules than
Whites are (Department of Labor, 2004). Lastly, occupational autonomy is also sometimes
associated with socio-economic class processes (Gecas, 1989; Kohn, 1969), with those in lower
classes having least autonomy.
7
Another way in which organizations produce inequality is through their job classification
systems and hiring and promotion practices. Job classification systems assign weights to skill
sets such that jobs commonly thought of as “women’s jobs” pay less and those thought of as
“men’s jobs” pay more. The same applies for skills needed for “white collar” jobs and those
needed for “blue collar” jobs—purportedly more for the former and less for the latter. In these
cases, “…class hierarchies in organizations, with their embedded gender and racial patterns, are
constantly created and renewed through organizing practices” (Acker, 2006b, p. 449).
Class structures are clearly evident in discount retailers where many employees in
different positions have similar educational backgrounds (e.g., high school degree). Nevertheless
in these and other organizations, often cashiers and stockers are women or people of color
managed by white men. In restaurants, waitpersons and management are often white, and cooks
and cleaners are often Hispanic. Call centers (e.g., banks, credit centers) are frequently staffed
by women and men of color and managed by Whites; and in healthcare facilities (e.g., nursing
homes, hospitals), low-wage positions are often staffed by women or men of color (Licensed
Vocational Nurses-LVNs, aides, housekeepers), and managed by white women or men. The
following management studies provide empirical support for the idea of the mutual production
and reproduction of inequality in work organizations.
Managers and supervisors making hiring decisions often participate in job segregation
processes by acting on stereotypes when selecting racial and ethnic minorities and women for
certain types of jobs and Whites and men for other jobs (Browne and Kennelly, 1999). Reskin
and Roos (1990) investigated employer stereotypes and notions of appropriate and inappropriate
workers for certain types of jobs and documented processes in which women’s heavy presence in
certain jobs and occupations supports the feminization of that occupation or job. Once the job is
8
labeled a female or male job, subsequent work is assigned accordingly. Other researchers also
assert that the predominance of women and racial minorities in certain types of jobs bolsters
assumptions and stereotypes about their suitability for those types of jobs (or unsuitability for
other positions) (Reskin, 1999; Ridgeway, 1997; Tomaskovic-Devey, 1993). Sex segregation
occurs when members of one sex constitute 70% or more of the people in a job or occupation.
Some common female-dominated jobs include secretaries/administrative assistants (96.1%),
registered nurses (91.7%), maids and housekeeping cleaners (89.7), and nursing, psychiatric, and
home health aides (88.7%) (Department of Labor, 2008a). While the former two occupations are
more likely to be white women, the latter two, with lower pay and status, are more likely to be
women of color.
Our emphasis in the preceding paragraphs is that when considering race and gender
inequality in organizations, as proposed by Acker, the intersections of these with class must also
be considered; otherwise, the analysis is missing an important component. In the following
section, we discuss research evidence of the maintenance of raced, gendered, and classed
processes in hiring practices in organizations, despite laws prohibiting discrimination in
employment.
Research Evidence of Gender, Race, and Class-Based Stereotyping and Discrimination
Perry, Davis-Blake, and Kulik (1994) asserted that gender-based selection decisions are a
necessary condition for gender segregation. They addressed the activation of “mental models”
called “schemas” in the categorization of people during the selection process (p.790).
Stereotypes are specific types of schemas in which knowledge or perceptions about people fall
into clear categories related to race, gender, age, or other categories. According to Perry et al.,
when a certain jobholder schema is activated during the selection process, a job applicant’s
9
attributes are compared to the jobholder schema and the applicant is selected based upon
congruency with it. For example, if a schema is associated with a male, then the applicant who
is perceived to have more “male-congruent” attributes is more likely to be selected than the
applicant who does not. In their research on sex discrimination in “traditionally male”
occupations, Terborg and Ilgen (1975) identified stereotypic attitudes regarding appropriate sexrole behavior in sex discrimination in hiring, salary determination, and the rewards of women.
Specifically, the traits viewed as necessary for success in certain jobs were thought to be present
in men and lacking in women. Darity and Mason (1998) provided evidence from court cases and
audit studies as confirmation of employers’ discriminatory practices based on race and gender.
They attributed these practices to strong preferences linked to stereotypical beliefs and associated
ranking for preferred employees within the context of certain jobs.
Studies of name-based discrimination by employers provide insights into the unique ways
race and class affect discrimination and job assignment. In their study, Bertrand and
Mullainathan (2004) found that significantly more resumes of applicants with names common to
Blacks had to be sent out to actual employers in Boston and Chicago to receive a call from
employers than resumes of applicants with names common to Whites. Resumes with white
names resulted in 50% more calls than those with black names. Further, having more education,
skills, and experience improved the probability that Whites, but not Blacks, would receive a call,
which is quite troubling. Education, a class indicator, improved employment opportunities for
Whites, but not for Blacks. It is possible that experiences with discrimination, despite having
education and skills, might serve to discourage Blacks from pursuing such education or skills,
further perpetuating the effects of inequality into the future.
10
Research suggests that in addition to providing information about their race, ethnicity,
and sex, in the United States certain names can “provide a strong signal of socioeconomic status”
(Fryer and Levitt, 2004, p. 767). Fryer and Levitt (2004) investigated patterns in naming among
Blacks in California between 1961 and 2000, a period in which the appearance of “distinctively
black” names increased markedly. They found that children with such names are associated with
mothers who are young, poor, and have low education (p. 787), revealing multiple intersecting
determinants of class. According to Fryer and Levitt (2004, p. 800-801) “even if the employer
knows that a candidate is black, the blackness of the name continues to serve as an important
signal of socioeconomic status.” Thus, unique black names can provide evaluators with cues
about the race, gender, and class backgrounds, and these cues appear to be used in discriminatory
processes by organizational decision-makers.
In one of the few studies that directly considers how class matters in decisions about job
suitability, King and her colleagues (2006) had white male participants evaluate resumes of
white, Asian, Hispanic, and black male applicants and rate their suitability for different jobs. The
researchers found evidence of raced and classed discrimination in selection decisions, with
Hispanics and Blacks being most highly rated for low status jobs (e.g., custodian, kitchen staff
worker, construction worker, public transportation employee, and repairman). White and Asian
applicants were preferred for high status jobs (e.g., chemist, physician, architect, engineer,
computer programmer, judge, and pilot).
Along with cues provided by names on resumes, Massey and Lundy (2001) found that
Americans can also infer race and class from speech patterns, allowing for discrimination in
telephone interactions. In their study of the behavior of rental agents toward those seeking
apartments, the authors found that speakers of Black English vernacular (e.g., lower-class
11
Blacks), black accented English (e.g., middle class Blacks), and white middle-class English
experienced differential treatment. Lower-class black women experienced the greatest
discrimination when trying to obtain housing. While 76% of middle-class white men gained
access to a potential rental unit, half as many (38%) of lower-class black women did. Although
this study involved rental agents rather than employers, it is reasonable to assume that similar
discernment of race of job-seekers who call or have phone interviews occurs (e.g., Cocchiara,
2007).
Finally, Hispanic women are also disadvantaged by gendered, raced, and classed-based
stereotyping. In a longitudinal study that provided evidence of the cumulative effects of
intersectional gender, race, and class disadvantages, De Anda (2005) investigated the prevalence
of employment hardship (e.g., joblessness, involuntary part-time work, low wages, and working
poverty) among Mexican-Origin women. Mexican-Origin women were nearly twice as likely as
non-Hispanic white women to experience employment hardship. These disparities existed at
lower and higher educational levels and varied by job sector. While non-Hispanic white women
were consistently advantaged with respect to all jobs over Hispanic women, for women in the
least skilled occupations, Mexican-Origin women were over three times as likely as white
women to experience employment hardship (De Anda, 2005).
Race, Class, and Gender in Labor Law: Resulting Inequities for Direct Care Workers
In the previous sections, we discussed ways in which stereotyping by individuals, enacted
through human resources practices, work to mutually produce and reinforce systematic
disadvantages for women, racial and ethnic minorities, and poor people. Acker (2006b) reminds
us of the role of history and politics in the maintenance of inequality in organizations. We now
consider the ways in which the historical context of race, gender, and class processes at times
12
work through individual employers and through legal systems that favor the interests of some
over others (e.g., employers over workers or Whites over those of color). Our examples are from
the U.S. context, but such processes also occur elsewhere (e.g., Blackaby, Leslie, Murphy, and
O’Leary, 2005; European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey, 2009; Johnston and
Kyriacou, 2011).
Historically, the U.S. government has played a key role in the exclusion of black and
other minority workers from work-related social welfare and economic programs to which white
Americans had access. Occupational exclusions and other qualification-based requirements in
access to benefits of Social Security (retirement income and disability payments) and the GI bill
(armed services veterans) have had long-lasting effects (Bound and Turner, 2002; see also Axinn
and Levin, 1992 and Quadagno, 1994, both cited in Acker, 2006a). While many of the most
egregious of these exclusions have been removed or revised, some have not and continue to
disadvantage certain types of workers. When implemented in 1938, the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) was intended to address wage minimums and overtime requirements, but domestic
and agricultural workers, largely blacks, Hispanics, and low wage-women workers were
specifically excluded from coverage (Boris and Honey, 1988; Mettler, 1994). That is, some
workers’ rights and wages were to be protected, but the rights and wages of others were
specifically not protected. The FLSA was amended in the 1960s and 1970s to include
agricultural workers, housekeepers, cleaners, full-time nannies, and chauffeurs but retained an
exception for babysitters and those who provided “companionship services” to the elderly or
disabled. Because of widespread job segregation, both the original and later inclusions and
exclusions amount(ed) to gender, race, and class-based differences in access to the wage and
salary protections afforded to workers. As of 2010, the FLSA, which currently covers more than
13
130 million U.S. workers still contains exclusions based on job type that are detrimental to the
economic, social, and physical well-being of large segments of the low wage work population,
including home health aide workers.
Of home health aides, the FLSA notes that
Employers who provide home health care services for individuals who (because of
age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves may or may not be required to
pay minimum wage and/or overtime premium pay depending upon the type of
services provided and the nature of the working relationship. Employees providing
"companionship services" as defined by the FLSA need not be paid the minimum
wage or overtime… (Department of Labor, 2008b).
Workers who perform these services are classified as 1) companions and homemakers, 2)
personal care assistants and home health aides and 3) certified nursing assistants (Seavey, 2007).
Therefore, companions and homemakers and personal care assistants and home health aides are
excluded from FLSA protections. In testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives
regarding fair pay for home health workers, Dorie Seavey, PhD, of PHI, a national research and
policy organization for the home care industry, highlights some key differences in the work that
home care/personal assistant aides perform since the FLSA laws were first amended. One is that
the nature of home health aide and personal assistant duties and training has changed
significantly. Aides no longer “only” provide companionship and help with housekeeping,
cooking, and cleaning and assistance with bathing, dressing, and eating. Depending upon state
laws, and under supervision of a nurse or therapist, they also perform more clinically-oriented
tasks such as medication management, checking of vital signs, and assistance with physical
therapy services. They must understand infection control procedures, the mental health and
social service needs of clients and how to modify their own behaviors in response to client needs
while allowing clients to make personal choices (Department of Labor, 2010; Direct Care
14
Alliance, 2005). Last, but not least, the communication and interpersonal skills that home health
aides must use in providing care to clients are as important as any of the aforementioned skills
and abilities. Clearly, home health aides do more than work as ‘elder sitters’; yet the nature and
importance of this work continues to be undervalued. Home health aide jobs are among the most
poorly-compensated, demanding jobs in the U.S. (Department of Labor, 2010; Seavey, 2007).
A lawsuit that reached the US Supreme Court provides an example one woman’s
unsuccessful efforts to remove the exclusion of direct care workers from the overtime provisions
of the FLSA:
Year in and year out, Evelyn Coke left her Queens house early to go to the homes
of elderly, sick, often dying people. She bathed them, cooked for them, helped
them dress and monitored their medications. She sometimes worked three
consecutive 24-hour shifts. She loved the work, but she earned only around $7 an
hour and got no overtime pay…In a case that reached the Supreme Court in
2007, Ms. Coke sued to reverse federal labor regulations that exempt home care
agencies from having to pay overtime…The court unanimously rejected her
claims, saying that Congress had given the Labor Department explicit authority
to include home care workers in minimum wage and overtime protection and the
agency had chosen to exclude them. (Martin, 2009).
One important contributor to the low wages of and exclusion of direct care workers from
FLSA provisions is that the work that home health aides perform is gendered, caring work, as is
that of the nursing profession as a whole (e.g., Carvahlo and Santiago, 2009; Ribeiro, 2008).
Economists, sociologists, and other researchers acknowledge that caring work pays less than
other kinds of work (England, et al., 1999; Folbre, 1995, Nelson, 1999). Direct care work,
performed primarily by women at very low wages and by disproportionate numbers of women of
color, is gendered, raced, and classed. Not surprising in the context of gendered expectations of
women as care-givers, eighty-seven percent (2005 figures) of personal and home care aides are
women (Seavey, 2007). Racially, slightly over half of home health aides in the U.S. are White,
15
nearly a quarter are Black, approximately 14% are Hispanic, and 10% categorized as “other”
(Seavey, 2007, p. 5). Since Whites are about 75% of the U.S. population, a disproportionate
proportion of these workers are women of color.
In healthcare overall, gendered, raced, and classed systems are apparent in the U.S., with
white men more likely to be physicians, white women to be registered nurses, and nursing aides
and home health aides more likely to be women of color (Zimmerman and Hill, 1999).
Education, earnings, and status are most to least among physicians, followed by registered
nurses, and nursing aides and home health aides. The intersections of these processes result in
the placement of those who perform direct care work at the bottom rungs of hierarchies in
healthcare work. Labor laws, written by those in privileged racial, gender, and class positions
and court decisions rendered by those similarly advantaged function such that those at the bottom
remain there. These structural, political, and legal mechanisms serve to mutually reinforce social
and cultural processes that are effectively inescapable in the lives of those who perform this type
of work.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
In this article, we have used Joan Acker’s conceptualizations of the intersections of race,
class, and gender and of inequality regimes in organizations in our discussion of human
resources practices and of laws related to pay and worker protections. Although race and gender
receive considerable research attention, much of that research focuses on their independent
effects, rather than on the mutual reproductions of race and gender, as suggested by Acker.
Further, class as a focus of research remains relatively understudied overall, therefore, study of
its mutual reproduction with race and gender is also virtually absent. It is possible that gender
and race, as largely visible demographic characteristics and the subjects of considerable anti-
16
discrimination legislation, are simply easier research topics than is class. It is also possible that
the dissimilarity of many management researchers with those situated in lower-socioeconomic
class positions may make their experiences of less visibility or interest (Bell, Kwesiga, and
Berry, 2010). In addition, whereas discrimination and differential outcomes on the basis of
gender or race are now more likely to be considered not acceptable, classed based differentials
are still widely viewed as legitimate (Acker, 2006a), often being seen as the result of
“meritocratic” practices. These “meritocratic” class practices, however, are closely linked with
race and gender differentiating systems.
We have shown how class-based discrimination in access to jobs, job placement, and in
job classification systems is indeed operational in organizations. We used home health care as a
specific example of the interaction of gender, race, and class in a specific occupation and the
costs of the intersecting disadvantages on home health aides. Due to the aging of the U.S.
population, the need for home health care workers is increasing tremendously. Between 2000
and 2030, the number of elderly persons in the U.S. will increase by 104% while the pool of
women in the age group (25 - 44 years), from which direct care workers are usually drawn, will
increase by only 7% (PHI, 2008). Thus, there will be more elderly people who will require care,
and fewer of the people who have typically been the care providers. Aside from the moral and
ethical issues associated with gender, race, and class discrimination, this looming crisis in the
direct care industry (see Berry and Schneider, 2011) makes attention to fairness in compensation
for home health care workers of increasing importance—perhaps of such importance that policy
decision-makers will work to change exclusionary practices.
Future Research
17
As suggested by Acker, and documented by De Anda (2004), Fryer and Levitt (2004),
King et al, (2006) and others, attention to the intersections of race, gender, and class are
important to understanding inequality. As we have discussed, there is a large body of research
related to the antecedents, causes and consequences of stereotyping and discrimination in
organizations. Because socioeconomic background has been linked empirically with an
identifiable attribute such as a name, research on class processes and stereotypes is an alreadyidentified gap in the selection literature. For black candidates without “black names,” one might
ask how raced and gendered stereotyping functions to lower their organizational opportunities
and outcomes.
Given the documentation of discrimination against those with black names and possible
assumptions that they are of a lower socioeconomic class, a reasonable question would ask if
Whites experience similar discrimination. According to Fryer and Levitt (2004), there exist
black names that no white person has and white names that no black person has. If Whites with
names distinctive to a certain class status experience differential treatment compared to Blacks
distinctive to a certain class status, this would provide support for findings of differential class
processes based on race. Within-race class studies for Whites would also be informative. Do
Whites of lower socioeconomic class experience classed discrimination in organizations similar
to that experienced by Blacks of lower class positions? How is such lower class recognized
among Whites?
Research on the mutual interaction of gendered, raced, and classed practices would
supplement and expand various topics in organizational research such as that related to hiring
and selection processes; that related to interactions, behaviors and outcomes related to gender
and race; and the larger body of research on perception and attribution in organizations. Other
18
theoretical constructs such as person-organization fit, organizational justice, emotional
intelligence, turnover, compensation systems, and research on groups and teams, to name a few,
would likely benefit from expanded analyses. In addition, research in this area might lead the
way for new research on class in organizations. How do people conceptualize class? How aware
are people of various class-based processes and how do they perceive that it affects their
opportunities and their educational and work goals? As a result of negative impacts on
individuals, how might class-based stereotyping and discrimination negatively affect
organizations? We concur with Acker’s (2006a, 2006b) admonition that we study the sociallyconstructed concepts of gender, race, and class as the mutual production and reproduction of
inequality in organizations. We believe that analysis of classed structures and processes with
gendered and raced systems would enable a more complete analysis of (and possibly reduction
of) inequality in organizations and society.
19
REFERENCES
Acker, J. (1992) Gendered institutions: From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary
Sociology 21(5), pp. 565-569.
Acker, J. (2006a), Class Questions: Feminist Answers, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,
Lanham, MD.
Acker, J. (2006b), “Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations”, Gender &
Society, 20(4), pp. 441-464.
Acker, J. (2009), “From glass ceilings to inequality regimes”, Science Direct, 51, pp. 199-217.
Amott, T. L. and Matthaei, J. A. (1991), Race, gender and work: A multicultural economic
history of women in the United States, South End Press, Boston, MA.
Anderson, P. and Collins, P. H. (2004), Introduction to Conceptualizing Race, Class, and
Gender in Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Bell, M. P. (2012). Diversity in Organizations. Mason, OH: Southwestern.
Bell, M. P., Kwesiga, E., and Berry, D. P. (2010), “Immigrants: The new ‘Invisible men and
women’ in diversity research”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(2), pp. 177-188.
Berry, D. & Schneider, S. (2011). “Improving the quality of home health aide jobs: A
collaboration between organized labor and a worker cooperative”, 2011 LERA Research
Volume. Champagne, IL: Labor and Employment Relations Association.
Bertrand, M. and Mullainathan, S. (2004). “Are Emily and Greg more employable than LaKisha
and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination”, American Economic
Review, 94, pp. 991-1011.
20
Blackaby, D. H., Leslie, D. G., Murphy, P. D., & O’Leary, N. C. (2005). “Born in Britain: How
are native ethnic minorities faring in the British labour market?”, Economics Letters, 88,
370-375.
Boris, E., and Honey, M. (1988), “Gender, race and the policies of the labor department”,
Monthly Labor Review, 111(2), p. 26.
Bound, J., and Turner, S. (2002), “Going to war and going to college: Did World War II and the
G.I. bill increase educational attainment for returning veterans?”, Journal of Labor
Economics, 20(4), pp. 784-815.
Browne, I. and Kennelly, I. (1999), “Stereotypes and realities: Images of Black women in the
labor market”, In Browne, I. (Ed.), Latinas and African American Women at Work: Race,
Gender, and Economic Inequality, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, pp. 302-326.
Carvahlo, T., and Santiago, R. (2009), “Gender as a ‘strategic action’: New public management
and the professionalization of nursing in Portugal”, Equal Opportunities International, 28
(7), pp. 609-622.
Catalyst, (2009), 2009 Catalyst Census: Fortune 500 Women Executive Officers and Top
Earners , available at:
http://www.catalyst.org/file/321/2009_fortune_500_census_women_executive_officers_and
_top_earners.pdf, (accessed 26 January 2010).
Cocchiara, F.K., (2007), Sociolinguistic cues, perceived race, and employment selection
outcomes: An exploration of the aversive racism framework (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3723956)
21
Cocchiara, F. K., Bell, M. P., and Berry, D. P. (2006). “Latinas and black women: Key factors
for a growing proportion of the U.S. workforce”, Equal Opportunities International. 25(4),
pp. 272-284.
Darity, W.A. and Mason, P.L. (1998), “Evidence on discrimination in employment: Codes of
color, codes of gender”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(2), pp. 63-90.
De Anda, R. M. (2005), “Employment hardship among Mexican-origin women”, Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27(1), pp. 43-59.
Department of Labor (2008a), 20 Leading occupations of employed women. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Annual Averages 2008, available at:
http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/20lead2008.htm#, (accessed 7 February 2010).
Department of Labor (2008b), Fact Sheet #25: The Home Health Care Industry Under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), available at:
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs25.pdf, (accessed 18 March 2010).
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010), Occupational Outlook Handbook:
Home Health Aides and Personal and Home Care Aides, available at:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos326.htm, (accessed 18 March 2010).
Direct Care Alliance (2005). Workforce strategies: The role of training in improving the
recruitment and retention of direct-care workers in long-term care, available at:
http://www.directcareclearinghouse.org/download/WorkforceStrategies3.pdf, (accessed 1
December 2009).
England, P., Christopher, K., and Reid, L. L. (1999). “Gender, race, ethnicity, and wages”, In
Browne, I. (Ed.), Latinas and African American Women at Work, Russell Sage Foundation,
New York, NY, pp. 139-182.
22
European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (2009). Data in Focus Report 1: The
Roma, available athttp://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/EU-MIDIS_ROMA_EN.pdf
(accessed 28 May 2010).
Folbre, N. (1995). “‘Holding hands at midnight’: The paradox of caring labor.” Feminist
Economics, 1(1), pp. 73-92.
Fryer, R. G., and Levitt, S. D. (2004). “The causes and consequences of distinctively black
Names”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3), pp. 767-804.
Gecas, V. (1989). “The social psychology of self-efficacy”, Annual Review of Sociology,
15, pp. 291-316.
hooks, b. (2000). Where We Stand: Class Matters, Routledge, New York, NY .
Johnston, R. and Kyriacou, O. (2011). “Exploring inclusion, exclusion and ethnicities in the
institutional structures of UK accountancy”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 30(6),
pp. 482 - 497.
King, E., Madera, J. M., Hebl, M. R., Knight, J. L., and Mendoza, S. A. (2006). “What’s in a
name? A multiracial investigation of the role of occupational stereotypes in selection
decisions,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, pp. 1145–1159.
Kohn, M.L. (1969), Class and Conformity: A Study in Values, Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL.
Martin, D. (2009, August 9). “Evelyn Coke, home care aide who fought pay rule, is dead at 74,”
New York Times, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/nyregion/10coke.html,
accessed 31 August 2011.
Massey, D. S., and Lundy, G., (2001), “Use of black English and racial discrimination in urban
housing markets: New methods and findings”, Urban Affairs Review, 36(4), pp. 452-469.
Mettler, S. B. (1994), “Federalism, gender, & the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938”, Polity,
26(4), pp. 635-654.
23
Muli, K. (1995), “Help me balance the load: Gender discrimination in Kenya.” In Peters, J. and
Wolper, A. (Eds.), Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives,
Routledge, London, pp. 78–81.
Nelson, J. A. (1999), Of markets and martyrs: Is it OK to pay well for care? Feminist Economics,
5(3), pp. 43-59.
Perry, E., Davis-Blake, A. & Kulik, C. 1994. Explaining gender-based selection decisions: A
Synthesis of contextual and cognitive approaches. Academy of Management Review, 19(4),
pp. 786-820.
PHI National (2008). “Direct care workers at a glance, 2008, available at:
http://phinational.org/policy/about-the-workforce/at-a-glance/, (accessed 20 September,
2009).
Reskin, B. (1999), “Occupational segregation by race and ethnicity among women workers,”
In Browne, I. (Ed.), Latinas and African American Women at Work. Russell Sage
Foundation, New York, NY, pp. 183-204.
Reskin, B. and Roos, P. (1990). Job Queues, Gender Queues. Temple University Press,
Philadelphia, PA.
Ribeiro, J. S. (2008), “Gendering migration flows: physicians and nurses in Portugal”, Equal
Opportunities International, 28 (1), pp. 77-87.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1997), “Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering
employment”, American Sociological Review, 62(2), pp. 218-235.
Seavey, D. (2007), Written statement of Dorie Seavey, PhD. Director of policy research before
the subcommittee on workforce protections, committee on educations and labor, U.S. House
24
of Representatives. Hearing on “H.R. 3582: The fair home health care act”. PHI National,
New York, NY.
Shaffer, M. A., Joplin, J. R. W., Bell, M. P., Oguz, C., and Lau, T. (2000), “Gender
discrimination and job-related outcomes: A cross-cultural comparison of working women in
the United States and China”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, pp. 395–427.
Terborg, J. R., and Ilgen, D. R., (1975), “A theoretical approach to sex discrimination in
traditionally masculine occupations”, Organizational behavior and human performance,
13(3), pp. 352-376.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1993), Gender & racial inequality at work: The sources &
consequences of job segregation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Weber, L. (2004), A Conceptual framework for understanding race, class, gender, and sexuality.
In Hesse-Biber, S. N. and Yaiser, M. L (Eds.) Feminist Perspectives on Social Research,
Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 121-139.
Zimmerman, M. and Hill, S. (1999), “Health care as a gendered system", in Chafetz, J. (Ed.),
Handbook of the Sociology of Gender, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York,
NY, pp. 483-518.