Comparing the Effects of Judges’ Gender and Arbitrators’ Gender in Sex Discrimination Cases and Why It Matters

Pat K. Chew, Judge J. Quint Salmon & Anne Salmon Chaired Professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, has published an interesting article titled “Comparing the Effects of Judges’ Gender and Arbitrators’ Gender in Sex Discrimination Cases and Why It Matters,” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 32, p. 195, 2017; University of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2017-21.  In her journal article, Professor Chew discusses the results of her research regarding the effect an arbitrator’s gender has on the outcome in sex discrimination cases.

Here is the abstract:

Empirical research substantiates that the judges’ gender makes a difference in sex discrimination and sexual harassment court cases. The author’s study of arbitration of sex discrimination cases administered by the American Arbitration Association between 2010 and 2014, however, finds that this judges’ “gender effect” does not occur. Namely, there is no significant difference in the decision-making patterns of female and male arbitrators as indicated by case outcomes.

The author proposes that characteristics of arbitrators, the arbitration process, and arbitration cases all combine to help explain the gender effect differences. Further, she suggests that this analysis reveals concerns about the arbitration process more broadly: do the employers’ advantages as a repeat player, the arbitrators’ competitive pressures, and the arbitrators’ unmonitored discretion in decision-making all combine to explain both the gender effect differences and problematic biases in the arbitration process?

This and other research papers written by Professor Chew are available for download from the Social Science Research Network.

Photo credit: amboo who? via Foter.com / CC BY-SA