Scholars have recognized the role that legal intermediaries can play in shaping the law through their interpretations of legal ambiguity and guidance to rule-takers on legal compliance. Although legal intermediaries thus have the potential to effect social change, most research in the area of employment discrimination has focused on the way they facilitate only symbolic compliance with the law. In this article, we examine how the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) took steps that legitimized a new area of claiming, classifying sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”) discrimination as prohibited sex discrimination. Drawing on 2012–2016 confidential charge data, we analyze which alleged issues had a greater likelihood of being identified by EEOC actors as strong cases of discrimination. We use quantitative administrative data and a unique dataset generated from the coding of charge narratives to develop our description of the EEOC’s categorization of SOGI charges. Our findings indicate that first by accepting SOGI charges and then by assigning 34% – much higher than other discrimination charge bases – with the highest processing category, the EEOC made new law, expanding Title VII protection. At the same time, our findings reflect that the EEOC exhibited restraint in this expansion through prioritizing charges that were closely aligned to prior gender stereotyping cases, rather than more directly signaling an SOGI identity-based protection. These findings illustrate the exercise of initiative within prior legal constraint, defining a new area of legal claiming.

At first glance, Part 3–1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) seems to overlap with long-established anti-discrimination laws, offering protection against adverse, attribute-based conduct in employment. On close analysis, however, it turns out to be a new and quite different regime. Although the Fair Work Act offers a simple alternative to dated and complicated anti-discrimination laws, its provisions are at times overly-simple, raising uncertainty about how they will operate. Our analysis leads us to conclude that the approach to discrimination protection in the Fair Work Act, while an important addition to the remedies available to Australian workers, is compromised by failing to take account of lessons learned in the long history of anti-discrimination law.

Chinese employers practise extensive personal screening of applicants during the recruitment process. This study identifies four motives for these practices – statistical, customer taste, employer taste and regulatory. It discusses their distinctive roles in the Chinese labour market and in regard to labour-market regulations. Using a convenience sample of large Chinese employers, the study evaluates the economic and institutional determinants of screening approaches and implications for firms’ performance. Statistical screening, based on the assumption that social group membership is an indicator of productivity or loyalty, is found to be related positively to employers’ capitalisation, labour-market power and private ownership, and negatively to skill supply in provincial markets. Customer-taste screening is prevalent in the services and sales sectors, and interestingly in wealthy first-tier cities. Employer-taste screening endures in privately owned firms, and in skill-intensive industries and first-tier cities, and appears linked to customer-taste screening. Some forms of screening breach anti-discrimination laws and persist because of lax enforcement of such laws, but requests for personal data on job applications forms may also reflect compliance with equity indicators. Regulatory compliance-based screening is related positively to firms’ market power, capitalisation and state ownership. The implications of the different screening practices for public policy and corporate strategy are examined.

It is 20 years since the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act, yet employment and economic inequities continue for people with disabilities. The purpose of this article is to inform and encourage disability management leading practices to contribute toward reducing these disparities. The approach is an examination of where in the employment process applicants and incumbent employees perceive employment disability discrimination, leading to the filing of charges against an employer. Employment disability discrimination claims filed by individuals over 15 years (1993–2007) with the United States (US) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or state and local Fair Employment Practice Agencies are studied. The authors analyse employment discrimination charges by year, basis (i.e., protected class characteristics, such as disability, age, or race), issue (i.e., actions of the employer, such as discharge, hiring, or harassment), employer characteristics (i.e, size of business and industry sector), and joint filings under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (gender, race/ethnicity, and religious discrimination) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Special attention is paid to where in the employment process people with specific impairments are perceiving discrimination. Implications of these research findings for the practice and administration of disability management and employer policies are discussed.