Reporting Workplace Discrimination: An Exploratory Analysis of Bystander Behavior

• Published date: 01 September 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X221149164
• Author: Helen H. Yu
• Date: 01 September 2024

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X221149164

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2024, Vol. 44(3) 453 –471

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X221149164

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

Reporting Workplace

Discrimination: An

Exploratory Analysis

of Bystander Behavior

Helen H. Yu1

Abstract

Reporting workplace discrimination has garnered renewed attention in public

administration scholarship. Missing, however, from the literature is bystander reporting,

a relatively new and understudied mode of reporting. Using a sub-sample of respondents

(i.e., bystanders) who witnessed others encountering workplace discrimination—

specifically race- (n = 886) and/or sex-based discrimination (n = 1,152)—this study

finds that less than one fifth (18.7% and 16.6% respectively) of all bystanders reported

the alleged offense. However, this study suggests that personal characteristics such

as age, race or ethnicity, and veteran status, as well as occupational variables such as

supervisory status and tenure duration, significantly impacted bystander reporting

after witnessing race-based discrimination. Likewise, personal characteristics such

as age, as well as occupational variables such as grade level, supervisory status, and

tenure duration, also significantly impacted bystander reporting after witnessing

sex-based discrimination. These findings are important because a different mode of

reporting may increase agency accountability for acts of workplace discrimination

or retaliation.

Keywords

reporting behavior, discrimination, bystander behavior, bystander intervention, No

FEAR Act

1University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Honolulu, USA

Corresponding Author:

Helen H. Yu, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa 2424 Maile Way, Saunders Hall 631, Honolulu, HI 96822,

USA.

Email: helenyu@hawaii.edu

1149164ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X221149164Review of Public Personnel AdministrationYu

research-article2023

454 Review of Public Personnel Administration 44(3)

Since the passage of the Notification and Federal Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation

Act of 2002 (i.e., No FEAR Act)—which empowers employees to report unlawful

behavior and expands agency accountability for acts of discrimination or reprisal in

the workplace, as amended by the Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Anti-

Discrimination Act of 2020—the subject of workplace discrimination and reporting

behavior, specifically on race- and sex-based discrimination, has garnered ample

attention in public administration scholarship (e.g., Alteri, 2020; Collins, 2004; Cortina

& Berdahl, 2008; EEOC, 2016; Leasher & Miller, 2012; Lee & Yu, 2020; Reese &

Lindenberg, 2005; Riccucci & Saldivar, 2014; Rubin & Alteri, 2019; Yu & Lee, 2020,

2021). This narrative is important because the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC, 2021a) received 43,462 formal complaints alleging race-

(22,064) and sex-based (21,398) discrimination in FY2020 alone, the third and fourth

most charged basis of employment discrimination in the United States next to disabil-

ity- (24,324) and retaliation-based (37,632) allegations. Likewise, the No FEAR Act

further requires an agency to establish, or leverage, a system to track (and subse-

quently post on its public website certain summary statistical data) each complaint of

discrimination, including retaliation, and submit a disciplinary action report to the

EEOC after all appeals have been exhausted.

The EEOC (2021d, 2021e) describes race- and sex-based discrimination as con-

taining any facet of employment, such as “hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promo-

tions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment,”

unfavorably due to an applicant or employee’s race or gender respectively. In addition,

race-based discrimination includes “personal characteristics associated with race, such

as hair texture, skin color, or certain facial features” (EEOC, 2021d). Likewise, race-

and sex-based harassment are modes of discrimination. For example, racial harass-

ment includes “racial slurs, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person’s race or

color, or the display of racially-offensive symbols” (EEOC, 2021d). Similarly, sexual

harassment includes “unwelcomed sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and

other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature [as well as] offensive remarks

about a person’s sex, including the person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or

pregnancy” (EEOC, 2021e). In both forms of harassment, it is also “illegal when it is

so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it

results in an adverse employment decision” (EEOC, 2021d, 2021e). While most of the

scholarship has focused on why employees do not report workplace discrimination

(e.g., Collins, 2004; Cortina & Berdahl, 2008; EEOC, 2016; Reese & Lindenberg,

2005; Yu, 2022), a small number of scholars have identified when employees will

respond more positively toward reporting discrimination in the workplace (e.g., Lee &

Yu, 2020; Rubin & Alteri, 2019; Yu & Lee, 2020, 2021).

Missing from this body of literature is bystander reporting. According to the EEOC

(2021b), any individual (e.g., applicant, employee, or former employee) who believes

that their employment rights have been violated can file an employment discrimina-

tion complaint, regardless of their citizenry or work status (e.g., full-time, part-time,

seasonal, or temporary). However, an individual other than the alleged victim (e.g.,

bystander or witness) may also file an employment discrimination complaint in