The limits of using grievance procedures to combat workplace discrimination

• Published date: 01 January 2024
• Author: Ayushi Narayan
• Date: 01 January 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12335

26

|

Industrial Relations. 2024;63:26–42.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jour nal/irel

INTRODUCTION

Grievanc e procedure s are among the most com mon practic es used to c ombat workplace dis -

crimi nation and hara ssment, and they c an protect f irms agai nst punitive d amages in as soci-

ated lawsuits (Bis om- Rapp,2 001; Dobbin & K alev,2 016, 2019). But is increas ed investment

in existing g rievance procedure s effective for combatti ng discri mination? In this paper, I find

limite d empirical evidenc e to support the view that the in creased use of this pr actice has large

effects on be havior in the workplac e. I use a large and detailed d ataset from the United States

Postal Serv ice (USPS) that contai ns informat ion on Equal Oppor tunity (EEO) gri evances re -

ported by workers and c areer outcomes to carr y out my analysis.

Grievanc e procedures have a theoretica lly ambiguous influ ence on broader workplace out-

comes. The heig htened use of grieva nce procedures cou ld reduce the prevalenc e of discrimi na-

tion by providing ac countabilit y, increase mi sbehavior via ba cklash as bad a ctors resent and

respond negatively to t he heightened at tention toward the topic, or have l ittle inf luence when

most workers remain u naffecte d. The lim ited causal i nference a nd related res earch on the

Received : 16 August 2022

|

Accepte d: 2 May 2023

DOI: 10.1111/irel.12335

ORIGINA L ARTICL E

The limits of using grievance procedures to combat

workplace discrimination

AyushiNarayan*

© 2023 Regents of t he University of Ca lifornia (RUC).

*Littauer Ce nter, 1805 Cambridge St reet, Cambr idge, MA 01238. ayushi_narayan@g.harvard.edu. I thank Katherin e Coffman,

Frank Dobbi n, Edward Glaes er, Claudia Gold in, Lawrence K atz, and par ticipants in t he Harvard Gr aduate Stude nt Workshop in

Labor Econo mics. Thi s research ha s been suppor ted by a James M. and C athleen D. Stone P hD Scholar fellow ship from the

Multidis ciplinar y Program in In equality & So cial Policy and b y the Lab for Econom ic Analysis an d Policy at Harva rd University.

Depart ment of Econom ics, Harvard

Universit y, Cambridge, MA, USA

Correspondence

Ayushi Naraya n, Departm ent of Economic s,

Harvard Un iversity, Littau er Center, 1805

Cambridg e Street, Camb ridge, MA 01238,

USA.

Email: ayushi_narayan@g.harvard.edu

Funding information

James M. and Ca thleen D. Stone Ph D

Scholar fel lowship; Lab for Econ omic

Analysi s and Policy at Har vard University

Abstract

I examine th e move from phone to online E qual

Employment Opport unity (EEO) report ing at the United

States Postal Se rvice (USPS) to identify the cau sal impact

of grievanc e procedure u se. This sh ift led to a large i n-

crease in s ex– bas ed complaints at the USPS in areas wit h

greater ac cess to broadband. However, I observe no com-

mensurate ch ange in sex gaps rel ated to tur nover, hiring,

and promotions. My results s uggest that a 10% increase in

sex– based compla ints changes t he female share i n sepa-

rations or hire s by less than 1%. Incre ased invest ment in

grievanc e procedures appears u nlikely to signif icantly in-

fluence discr imination outcomes.

|

27

LIMITS OF USING GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

topic find ev idence in support of each of the se hypotheses.1 One study exam ining the effect of

EEO litigation on workforce compo sition finds a b enefic ial impact of ac countability (Knight

et al.,2022), and other researc h finds most USPS employees are satisf ied with the USPS griev-

ance system ( Bingham,2003). Alternat ively, two studies show grieva nce procedures can lower

the share of mi norities and women i n management po sitions (Dobbin & Kal ev,20 16, 2019).

The find ings of these st udies are co nsistent with fea rs of backlash note d in various news arti-

cles following the r ise of sexual h arassment re porting wit h the 2017 #MeToo movement (e.g.,

Bowe r, 2019; T he Economist, 2018; Tolentino, 2 018). Yet other research shows that a sm all

fraction of those who ex perienc e harassme nt and discr imination r eport the mi sbehavior

(Boudreau et al., 2023; Feldblum & Lipnic, 2016 ), lim iting the scop e for positive or negative

responses to reporting changes.

In this study, I seek to u nderstand whe ther an incre ase in hara ssment and dis crim ination

reporting a lways leads to back lash, whether it ca n lead to improvements , or whether it has no

signif icant impac t. I use a variation f rom a November 2018 policy at the USPS that changed

the reporti ng format from over the phone and vi a the mail to pr imari ly online. In re sponse to

this polic y shift, the nu mber of complaints c ontaini ng at least one sex– b ased alle gation rose

by about 40%. The inc rease was con centrated i n counties with ab ove– me dian broadband a c-

cess. Lever aging data on workpla ce outcomes by se x from the names and o ccupations l isted

in public payroll rost ers, I compare h igh and low broadband ac cess cou nties before and afte r

the policy cha nge. I find the s ex gaps in tur nover, hiring, or promotion outc omes remai ned

unchanged de spite the sharp increas es in sex– based g rievance rates. The con fidence i ntervals

suggest that a 10% inc rease in sex– based EEO reporti ng would change the fem ale share in sep-

arations or rec ent hires by less than rough ly 1%. My findings thus s uggest a null effect of EEO

grievanc e reporting on downstream workpl ace outcomes.

Overall, the f indings of this paper sug gest that simply using more of the sam e legally moti-

vated grieva nce processes may have a li mited impact on unwante d discrimi natory and harass-

ing behaviors. It is worth not ing that the fi ndings are sp ecif ic to the USPS, which is a h ighly

unioniz ed and regu lated public se ctor workplace. Si milar pol icies mig ht have a different im-

pact in workplac es with fewer protec tions. The resu lts from this stu dy also may not translat e

to related but dif ferent policy changes, such a s the addition or removal of any reporti ng policy

or those brought about by soci al movements related to report ing unwanted behaviors. Sti ll, the

null result obs erved for the commonly use d antidiscrimi nation and harassment polic y studied

in this pap er suggests that new policie s will likely be need ed to make progres s on the issues of

discri mination and harassme nt in workplaces l ike the USPS.

DETAILS ABOUT THE USPS

The USPS is the fourth large st employer in the United States, with roug hly half a m illion em-

ployees working in te ns of thousands of post office fa cilities across the Unit ed States. Its large

size allows me to ex amine var iation in the us e of workplace dis crimi nation polici es across

geographie s and over time. In add ition, becaus e the USPS is part of the fed eral government,

it must comply with the Free dom of Information Act (FOIA) and release pers onnel data, with

privacy- prote cted fi elds redact ed, allowi ng me to acce ss data that are t ypically u nattainabl e

from private sec tor firm s. The variat ion in the use workplac e discr iminat ion policy and the

data colle cted via FOIA requests form the bas is of my analysis.

1A related l iterature st udies the int eraction bet ween gender, emp loyee voice, and work place outcom es (e.g., Bruno et al.,20 21;

Han,2020; Lipsky et a l.,2012).