Title VII Sex and Race Discrimination Litigation Settlements as Opportunities for Organizational Change

Purpose

This study investigated how frequently and under what circumstances Title VII lawsuit settlements resulted in mandates for substantive organizational change in HR policies and practices that, according to social science research, are likely to move beyond mere pro forma compliance to foster greater inclusion and equality.

Design/Methodology/Approach

502 consent decrees settling Title VII sex and race discrimination lawsuits in 200–2008 were collected, coded, and analyzed. Multinomial logistic regression was used. Sociological theories of organizational change and of the relationship between law and organizations informed the study.

Findings

48 % of the consent decrees examined specified no meaningful substantive changes; 31 % required formalization of personnel decision-making remedies; 21 % required more innovative measures. Certified class actions, other non-individual lawsuits, lawsuits filed in more liberal Federal District Courts, and public sector employer predicted more substantive remedies for organizational change in organizations’ EEO policies and practices, all else being equal. Single plaintiffs and a conservative District Court legal environment predicted a greater likelihood of pro forma only remedies.

Implications

Discrimination lawsuit settlements are a potential impetus for improved diversity management policies.

Originality/Value

Consent decrees are an unusually direct and potentially powerful mechanism under Title VII for employment discrimination lawsuits to mandate substantive organizational change. Whereas a few studies have discussed a very small number of high-profile settlements, this is the first systematic examination of the programmatic mandates in consent decrees and how they vary.