|This centre is a member of The LSE Research Laboratory [RLAB]: CASE | CVER | CEP | FMG | SERC | STICERD||Cookies?|
A. Abigail Payne,
Paper No' PEPP 04: | Full paper
Save Reference as: BibTeX File | EndNote Import File
Is hard copy/paper copy available? YES - Paper Copy Still In Print.
This Paper is published under the following series:
Share this page: Google Bookmarks | Facebook | Twitter
Abstract:One of the most striking changes in labor market policy of the past fifty years has come in the form of legislation to limit discrimination in the workplace based on race, gender, disability and age. If such measures are to be effective in ending discrimination, they need to be enforced. The latter is dependent on state and federal agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission and ultimately the willingness of courts to find in favor of plaintiffs. Courts also play an important role in the evolution of antidiscrimination policy since past decisions create future precedent. This paper asks whether the number of charges filed with government agencies depends on the method by which judges are selected. Popularly elected judges should be expected to have more proemployee preferences (selection) and should move closer to employee preferences (incentives). This should result in fewer anti-discrimination charges being filed in states that appoint their judges. In line with this prediction, this paper uses data on the number of employment discrimination charges filed for the period 1973-2000 and finds that states that appoint their judges have fewer anti-discrimination charges being filed.
Copyright © STICERD & LSE 2005 - 2022 | LSE, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE | Tel: +44(0)20 7955 6699 | Email: email@example.com | Site updated 15 August 2022