Latest News
Impact of Gender Diversity in Judicial and Arbitration Decision-Making in Sex Discrimination Cases
Impact of Gender Diversity in Judicial and Arbitration Decision-Making in Sex Discrimination Cases
Studies reveal that the gender of judges has a notable impact on instances involving sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Decisions made by female judges are more likely to support employee claimants, maybe as a result of their differing viewpoints. Nonetheless, the American Arbitration Association's empirical analysis of sex discrimination arbitration cases from 2010 to 2014 revealed no appreciable distinction in the decision-making styles of male and female arbitrators. This difference is especially significant in light of the growing use of arbitration in sex discrimination claims and the declining usage of the legal system.
The study on the impact of judges' gender on the results of sex discrimination and sexual harassment cases is discussed in the article, emphasising the need to consider different points of view while making decisions. It also examines the growing and widespread use of obligatory arbitration as a means of settling workplace conflicts and the key distinctions between arbitration and litigation, posing concerns regarding the substantive and procedural suitability of arbitration. According to the paper, the gender impact inequalities can be partially explained by the features of arbitrators, the arbitration procedure, and arbitration cases taken together. Female judges are more likely to hold for plaintiffs and hold for them in sex discrimination and sexual harassment cases, indicating that the gender impact is a substantial influence.
Christina Boyd and colleagues studied the impact of gender diversity among judges in federal appellate courts, specifically in instances involving sex discrimination. It was discovered that female judges make decisions in a different way than their male counterparts and that having a female judge on an appellate panel affects the decisions made by her male colleagues in instances involving sex discrimination. It is referred to as the "judges' gender effect."
Numerous plausible reasons for this phenomenon are offered by in-depth empirical social psychology research. First, while assessing intricate gender dynamics, such as sexual harassment in the workplace, it is important to consider the unique experiences and socialisation of women. Second, women differ in their perceptions of what sexual harassment and sex discrimination are. Rotunda and her colleagues discovered evidence of gender disparities in a meta-analysis of pertinent literature, with women classifying a wider spectrum of behaviour as sexual harassment. Depending on the kind of behaviour in question, these disparities vary in size.
Research in social science constantly shows that considering other points of view is a valuable addition to making wise decisions. More varied individuals in a group foster mutual learning and double-check the accuracy of information presented, which eventually results in more accurate decision-making. In a democratic society where half the population and almost all aggrieved employees in sex discrimination cases are women, the representation of views from both genders is important. Denying gendered viewpoints communicates that certain points of view are unworthy and shouldn't be discussed, which is an indication of stigma and exclusion. Judges' decisions in matters involving sexual harassment and discrimination are influenced by gendered viewpoints. Case results will further balance the "gendered perspective" when more women enter the judiciary.
Over the past three decades, a significant shift in civil justice has occurred, with more disputes being resolved in private dispute resolution processes like arbitration. Due to employer-mandated grievance processes in many corporate settings, a large number of employment issues, including sex discrimination accusations, are arbitrated. However, arbitration differs in critical ways, including its fundamental nature, selection of decision-makers, and procedures for the decision-making process. Decisions in litigation are made by juries or judges; in arbitrations, arbitrators decide the decisions.
Employers typically have several advantages in employment arbitrations, such as more resources, experience in vetting and using arbitration service providers, and access to informal word-of-mouth referrals. However, employee plaintiffs have limited resources and are less familiar with the system and potential arbitrators. A set of legal precedents and principles regulate the proceedings, and the arbitrators are chosen through a confidential procedure. Arbitration in practice has built-in biases that may not serve justice. Employers exercise their control as repeat players and tend to select more management arbitrators, leading to complaints from employees getting the short end of the stick. To address these concerns, research on the judges' gender and the arbitrators' gender suggests that more diversity in arbitrators' profiles would help offset the advantages of employer repeat players and create a fairer playing field.
- Female judges are more likely to support plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases.
- Male and female arbitrators show no significant decision-making differences in sex discrimination cases.
- Employer advantages in arbitration highlight the need for more diverse arbitrator profiles to ensure fairness.
