No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Structure, Agency, and Working Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 October 2019
Abstract
Working Law: Courts, Corporations, and Symbolic Civil Rights (2016), by Lauren Edelman, presents an integrated theory of endogeneity that explains how organizational responses to civil rights laws undermine civil rights protections, preserve managerial prerogatives, and redefine judicial interpretations of compliance. Structural dynamics baked into organizations and driven by legitimacy and meaning produce organizational practices that appear to prohibit discrimination but do little to change discrimination on the ground. Working Law raises important questions for future research: Under what conditions might symbolic structures be effective? How does power affect the institutionalization of some symbols of compliance but not others? Can legal reforms limit the effects of endogeneity?
- Type
- Symposium on Legal Endogeneity: Lauren Edelman’s Working Law
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2019 American Bar Foundation
References
REFERENCES
Albiston, Catherine R. “Bargaining in the Shadow of Social Institutions: Competing Discourses and Social Change in Workplace Mobilization of Civil Rights.” Law & Society Review 39, no. 1 (2005): 11–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albiston, Catherine R.. Institutional Inequality and the Mobilization of the Family and Medical Leave Act: Rights on Leave. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albiston, Catherine R., and Green, Tristin K. “Social Closure Discrimination.” Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law 39 (2018): 1–35.Google Scholar
Bagenstos, Samuel R. “The Structural Turn and the Limits of Antidiscrimination Law.” California Law Review 94 (2006): 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banaji, Mahzarin R., Hardin, Curtis, and Rothman, Alexander J.. “Implicit Stereotyping in Person Judgment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, no. 2 (1993): 272–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banaji, Mahzarin R., and Hardin, Curtis D.. “Automatic Stereotyping.” Psychological Science 7, no. 3 (1996): 136–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Peter L., and Luckmann, Thomas. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin UK, 1991.Google Scholar
Bielby, William T. “Minimizing Workplace Gender and Racial Bias.” Contemporary Sociology 29 (2000): 120–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheryan, Sapna, Plaut, Victoria C., Davies, Paul G., and Steele, Claude M.. “Ambient Belonging: How Stereotypical Cues Impact Gender Participation in Computer Science.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97, no. 6 (2009): 1045–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubal, Veena B. “Wage Slave or Entrepreneur: Contesting the Dualism of Legal Worker Identities.” California Law Review 105 (2017): 65–124.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B. Working Law: Courts, Corporations, and Symbolic Civil Rights. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Fine, Jacine R. Worker Centers: Organizing Communities at the Edge of the Dream. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., and Taylor, Shelley E.. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Tristin K., 2016. Discrimination Laundering: The Rise of Organizational Innocence and the Crisis of Equal Opportunity Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony G., Banaji, Mahzarin R., Rudman, Laurie A., Farnham, Shelly D., Nosek, Brian A., and Mellott, Deborah S.. “A Unified Theory of Implicit Attitudes, Stereotypes, Self-Esteem, and Self-Concept.” Psychological Review 109, no. 1 (2002): 3–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, Melissa. “Learning from Wal-Mart.” Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal 10 (2006): 355–94.Google Scholar
Kalev, Alexandra, Dobbin, Frank, and Kelly, Erin. “Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies.” American Sociological Review 71, no. 4 (2006): 589–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawakami, Kerry, Young, Heather, and Dovidio, John F.. “Automatic Stereotyping: Category, Trait, and Behavioral Activations.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, no. 1 (2002): 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krieger, Linda H. “The Content of Our Categories: A Cognitive Bias Approach to Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity.” Stanford Law Review 47 (1995): 1161–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, Michael W. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Nelson, Robert L., and Bridges, William P.. Legalizing Gender Inequality: Courts, Markets and Unequal Pay for Women in America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Walter W., and DiMaggio, Paul J.. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Reskin, Barbara F. “Bringing the Men Back In: Sex Differentiation and the Devaluation of Women’s Work.” Gender & Society 2, no. 1 (1988): 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. Richard. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2013.Google Scholar
Sturm, Susan. “Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach.” Columbia Law Review 101 (2001): 458–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinkler, Justine Eatenson, Li, Yan E., and Mollborn, Stefanie. “Can Legal Interventions Change Beliefs? The Effect of Exposure to Sexual Harassment Policy on Men’s Gender Beliefs.” Social Psychology Quarterly 70, no. 4 (2007): 480–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald. Gender & Racial Inequality at Work: The Sources and Consequences of Job Segregation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Uhlmann, Eric Luis, and Cohen, Geoffrey L.. “Constructed Criteria: Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination.” Psychological Science 16, no. 6 (2005): 474–80.Google ScholarPubMed