Racialized and criminalized men belong to intersecting groups of marginalized workers; that is, Black and Indigenous men are more likely than White men to bear a criminal record. They are also more likely to seek work in the low-wage labour market, where there is more discrimination. Although hiring discrimination based on race is against federal law, human rights legislation in certain provinces, including Nova Scotia, permits discrimination on the basis of criminal record status. This means that job seekers could face indirect racial discrimination through criminal record checks. Does carrying a criminal record mean the same thing for men of different races? In our experiment, we changed the names on top of résumés so that they were perceived as belonging to equally-qualified White, Black, or Indigenous men, with or without criminal records. Then, we asked our research participants how likely they were to hire the candidate for an entry-level job, and how trustworthy or likeable they felt the candidate was. Our results suggest that the presence of a criminal record disproportionately disadvantages Black men, and that people who are discriminating based on race tell a different story about their hiring decision, by making the rejection about something else (e.g., criminal record, education, experience, or professionalism). We will discuss the implications for human rights law and employment policy in the context of the limitations of the study.
*This presentation, with the original title 'Testing racial and criminal record discrimination in a simulated hiring scenario' served as a qualifying exam for the PhD in IO psychology at Saint Mary's University on Oct 29 2021, and as an invited presentation to the HRM Job Developer's Network on Nov 18 2021*
While not explicitly stated in the presentation, I believe this study indicates the need for affirmative action for inclusion, because marginalized job candidates are easily subject to indirect discrimination in hiring processes.
