Abstract:We develop tools for utilizing correspondence experiments to detect illegal discrimination by individual employers. Employers violate US employment law if their propensity to contact applicants depends on protected characteristics such as race or sex. We establish identification of higher moments of the causal effects of protected characteristics on callback rates as a function of the number of fictitious applications sent to each job ad. These moments are used to bound the fraction of jobs that illegally discriminate. Applying our results to three experimental datasets, we find evidence of significant employer heterogeneity in discriminatory behavior, with the standard deviation of gaps in job-specific callback probabilities across protected groups averaging roughly twice the mean gap. In a recent experiment manipulating racially distinctive names, we estimate that at least 85% of jobs that contact both of two white applications and neither of two black applications are engaged in illegal discrimination. To assess the tradeoff between type I and II errors presented by these patterns, we consider the performance of a series of decision rules for investigating suspicious callback behavior under a simple two-type model that rationalizes the experimental data. Though, in our preferred specification, only 17% of employers are estimated to discriminate on the basis of race, we find that an experiment sending 10 applications to each job would enable accurate detection of 7-10% of discriminators while falsely accusing fewer than 0.2% of non-discriminators. A minimax decision rule acknowledging partial identification of the joint distribution of callback rates yields higher error rates but more investigations than our baseline two-type model. Our results suggest illegal labor market discrimination can be reliably monitored with relatively small modifications to existing audit designs.

Salary History and Employer Demand: Evidence from a Two-Sided Audit

US Salary History Bans -- Strategic Disclosure by Job Applicants and the Gender Pay Gap

Perpetuating wage inequality: evidence from salary history bans

Board Gender Diversity and Cost of Equity: Evidence from Mandatory Female Board Representation

Does pay disclosure in job offers remove gender differences in pay estimations? Evidence from an experiment with students and job seekers in the context of Austria

Does Information Disclosure Affect the Gender Gap in Bidding Behavior? Empirical Evidence from a Natural Experiment on a Large Online Labor Platform

Gender Discrimination in Hiring: Evidence from a Cross-National Harmonized Field Experiment

Central Role Of The Ask Gap In Gender Pay Inequality

Audits as Evidence: Experiments, Ensembles, and Enforcement

Gender composition predicts gender bias: A meta-reanalysis of hiring discrimination audit experiments

Reducing discrimination against job seekers with and without employment gaps

When Harry Fired Sally: The Double Standard in Punishing Misconduct

Gender Discrimination in Hiring: Evidence from 19,130 Resumes in China

Accounting for the Gap: A Firm Study Manipulating Organizational Accountability and Transparency in Pay Decisions

Gender discrimination and the backlash effect in recruitment and dismissal processes: experimental evidence from Slovakia

The Impact of Selection into the Labor Force on the Gender Wage Gap

Gender Salary Gap in the Auditing Profession: Trend and Explanations

Gender-targeted job ads in the recruitment process: Facts from a Chinese job board

Gender Discrimination? Evidence from the Belgian Public Accounting Profession

The Role of the ASK GAP in Gender Pay Inequality

The Resume Paradox: Greater Language Differences, Smaller Pay Gaps