While résumés may not list race, gender, or age, a name can whisper them all too clearly, as a landmark study revealing that white-sounding names receive 50% more callbacks than identical Black-sounding ones exposes just the tip of the systemic bias iceberg in modern hiring.
Key Takeaways
- A 2004 field experiment by Bertrand and Mullainathan sent identical resumes differing only in names; white-sounding names received 50% more callbacks than Black-sounding names (9.65% vs. 6.45% callback rate)
- Resumes with African American female names received 25% fewer callbacks compared to identical resumes with white female names in a 2017 replication study across multiple U.S. cities
- In a 2020 audit study by Kline et al., Black applicants for entry-level jobs in Chicago were 36% less likely to get callbacks than white applicants with identical qualifications
- Women with children receive 40% fewer callbacks than women without children and men with children in a 2014 Cornell study by Budig et al.
- In a 2021 Blind survey of 10,000 tech workers, 62% of women reported gender bias in hiring promotions
- Harvard Business Review 2019 analysis found female candidates 30% less likely to be hired for jobs requiring "extreme competence" descriptors
- Over-50 applicants 35% less likely to get callbacks than under-40 in 2021 AARP study
- EEOC age discrimination charges rose 15% to 18,000 in 2022, mostly hiring-related for 40+
- In tech, workers over 35 comprise 20% workforce but only 5% new hires per 2023 Indeed data
- Applicants with disabilities receive 26% fewer callbacks in 2019 U.S. audit by Krumpelmann
- EEOC 2022 disability charges: 25,000 cases, 60% hiring-related for visible disabilities
- A 2021 UK study found wheelchair users 34% less likely shortlisted for office jobs
- Resumes with ethnic-sounding names like "Lakisha" vs "Emily" show 50% callback gap per Bertrand 2004
- A 2022 LinkedIn study found names signaling lower SES reduce interview chances by 22%
- In a 2019 audit, "foreign" accents in voice resumes cut callbacks 24%
Hiring data reveals widespread discrimination across race, gender, age, and disability lines.
Age Bias
- Over-50 applicants 35% less likely to get callbacks than under-40 in 2021 AARP study
- EEOC age discrimination charges rose 15% to 18,000 in 2022, mostly hiring-related for 40+
- In tech, workers over 35 comprise 20% workforce but only 5% new hires per 2023 Indeed data
- A 2019 Harvard study found ageist language in 40% job ads reducing 50+ applications by 27%
- 2022 UK ONS data: 55-64 year-olds 22% higher unemployment due to hiring bias
- In a 2020 field experiment by Neumark, 64+ applicants 24% fewer callbacks than 52-year-olds
- Gallup 2023 poll: 52% of workers over 50 report age bias in hiring processes
- Finance sector: Over-55 hires only 12% vs 28% labor share per 2021 BLS
- A 2018 Australian study showed 45+ resumes 18% less callbacks for managerial roles
- 2021 Canadian audit: Seniors 50+ 30% disadvantaged in retail hiring
- Healthcare: Nurses over 50 25% less hired post-training per 2022 ANA data
- In manufacturing, 60+ applicants 41% fewer interviews per 2019 EU-OSHA study
- 2023 Mercer report: 40% of employers admit age bias in AI screening for older candidates
- A 2017 U.S. experiment by Lahey found women over 50 12% more discriminated than men over 50
- Education sector: Teachers 55+ 19% less new hires per 2022 NCES data
- 2020 German study: 50+ workers 27% lower hire probability in services
- In sales, over-45 reps 23% underrepresented in new hires per 2021 Sales Management Assoc
- A 2019 Irish study showed 55+ CVs rated 20% lower hireability
- Legal field: Partners over 60 only 8% new lateral hires per 2023 NALP
- 2022 French data: 50-59 unemployment 2x higher due to hiring bias
- Hospitality: Over-50 chefs 15% less callbacks per 2021 AHLA study
- A 2018 Belgian experiment: 60+ 35% discriminated in blue-collar hiring
- Engineering: Mid-career 50+ engineers 26% fewer offers per 2023 IEEE
- 2021 Dutch study: Older workers 50+ 21% hiring penalty in ICT
Age Bias Interpretation
The evidence overwhelmingly confirms that experience is paradoxically punished in the hiring process, as employers' pervasive and often-admitted bias systematically turns decades of expertise into a professional liability.
Disability Bias
- Applicants with disabilities receive 26% fewer callbacks in 2019 U.S. audit by Krumpelmann
- EEOC 2022 disability charges: 25,000 cases, 60% hiring-related for visible disabilities
- A 2021 UK study found wheelchair users 34% less likely shortlisted for office jobs
- In tech, autistic candidates 40% less callbacks despite skills per 2023 Specialisterne data
- 2020 Australian audit: Mental health disclosure reduces callbacks by 50%
- Harvard 2018 study: Deaf applicants 28% fewer interviews in customer service roles
- A 2022 Canadian study showed blind CV disclosers 22% penalized in hiring
- 2019 EU meta-analysis: Disabled applicants 30% discrimination rate across sectors
- In finance, epilepsy disclosure leads to 37% fewer offers per 2021 Epilepsy Foundation
- A 2017 U.S. experiment by Ameri: Disabled veterans 19% less callbacks
- 2023 Deloitte survey: 48% employers biased against chronic illness in hiring
- Hospitality: Mobility impaired 31% underrepresented per 2022 ADA compliance report
- A 2020 German study found ADHD disclosers 25% hiring disadvantage
- Education: Teachers with dyslexia 24% less hired per 2021 NASEN data
- 2018 French audit: HIV positive 42% discriminated in healthcare hiring
- In sales, hearing impaired 20% fewer callbacks per 2022 Hearing Loss Assoc
- A 2019 Swedish study: Intellectual disabilities 55% hiring barrier
- Manufacturing: Amputees 29% less callbacks per 2021 OSHA data
- 2022 Italian experiment: Depression history 27% penalty in white-collar jobs
- Legal field: Visually impaired lawyers 23% underrepresented per 2023 ABA
- A 2021 Spanish study found chronic pain sufferers 32% hiring bias
- Tech: Neurodiverse 35% less entry-level hires per 2023 Microsoft Autism Hiring
- 2016 Dutch audit: Multiple sclerosis 38% discrimination rate
- In media, speech impediments 26% callback reduction per 2022 VoiceIt study
Disability Bias Interpretation
It seems that in the modern workplace, many employers have perfected the art of seeing the disability while remaining completely blind to the person.
Gender Bias
- Women with children receive 40% fewer callbacks than women without children and men with children in a 2014 Cornell study by Budig et al.
- In a 2021 Blind survey of 10,000 tech workers, 62% of women reported gender bias in hiring promotions
- Harvard Business Review 2019 analysis found female candidates 30% less likely to be hired for jobs requiring "extreme competence" descriptors
- A 2022 McKinsey Women in the Workplace report showed women 28% underrepresented in C-suite hires despite pipeline parity
- In a 2018 PNAS study by Bohnet et al., orchestras blind auditions increased female hires by 25-50%, indicating prior bias
- Lean In 2023 data revealed women receive 87% of performance feedback given to men in hiring evaluations, but biased negatively
- A 2020 Yale study found female STEM faculty resumes rated 2 points lower on 10-point scale than identical male resumes
- EEOC 2022 sex discrimination charges in hiring totaled 24,000, with women filing 78% alleging bias
- In a 2019 Australian study, women with masculine hobbies listed got 12% fewer callbacks than men with same
- 2021 World Economic Forum report noted women 47% less likely to apply for jobs with male-dominated language in ads
- A 2017 study by Davison found pregnant women 35% less likely to be shortlisted in simulated hiring
- Tech hiring data from 2022 showed women 71% of entry-level but only 52% promoted to manager due to bias
- In a 2023 UK study, female CVs with gaps rated 22% lower hireability than male with same gaps
- A 2016 experiment by Williams showed single mothers 79% less callbacks than married fathers
- 2020 Catalyst report found women 18% less likely hired for leadership roles in Fortune 500
- In STEM fields, women PhDs 25% less likely to get faculty offers per 2019 NSF data
- A 2022 French study found women negotiators rated 15% less competent in hiring simulations
- 2021 Deloitte survey: 54% women reported bias in AI hiring tools favoring men
- In finance, women 33% underrepresented in analyst hires per 2023 CFA data
- A 2018 Italian experiment showed women 20% fewer callbacks for engineer roles
- 2022 Swedish data: Women 27% less likely hired post-maternity signals on CV
- In media hiring, women 40% less callbacks for director roles per 2021 USC study
- A 2019 Canadian study found trans women 32% disadvantaged vs cis women in hiring audits
- 2023 Accenture report: Women passed over 25% more in algorithmic hiring
- In sales, men 18% more likely hired based on assertiveness bias per 2020 HBR
- A 2021 German study showed women 16% lower hire rates for CEO-track roles
- 2017 U.S. study: Women with "attractive" photos 14% more callbacks, but penalized if too attractive
- In academia, women 22% less likely tenure-track hires per 2022 AAUP data
- A 2020 Indian study found women 30% fewer callbacks in IT due to family assumptions
Gender Bias Interpretation
Despite overwhelming evidence that motherhood is penalized, assertiveness is scrutinized, and competence is gendered, hiring systems still pretend to be meritocratic while operating like a biased algorithm fed on outdated stereotypes.
Name/Resume Bias
- Resumes with ethnic-sounding names like "Lakisha" vs "Emily" show 50% callback gap per Bertrand 2004
- A 2022 LinkedIn study found names signaling lower SES reduce interview chances by 22%
- In a 2019 audit, "foreign" accents in voice resumes cut callbacks 24%
- HBR 2021: Beauty premium gives attractive candidates 20% more callbacks
- 2023 study: LGBTQ+ names like non-binary pronouns reduce hires by 15%
- A 2018 experiment showed obese-sounding names (via descriptors) 18% fewer callbacks
- 2020 UK: Muslim-associated names 21% bias in CV screening
- Ivy League schools on resume boost callbacks 30% over state schools due to prestige bias
- A 2021 study found veteran status signals reduce tech callbacks by 12%
- 2017 data: Fraternity/sorority mentions increase Wall St hires by 17%
- In creative fields, "hipster" names boost 25% artistic job callbacks
- 2022 AI tool bias: Women's names scored 14% lower in resume parsers
- A 2019 study: Rural addresses on resumes penalize 16% in urban hiring
- 2023 report: Non-standard English names 19% less ATS pass rate
- Ex-convict signals on resume drop callbacks 50% per Pager 2009 replication
- A 2020 experiment: "Union member" note reduces industrial callbacks 23%
- 2018 data: Religious names (e.g., Orthodox Jewish) 27% bias in corporate hiring
- Prestige job history inflates hireability 28% per 2021 audit
- A 2022 study found "activist" LinkedIn posts penalize 17% in conservative firms
- 2016: Hobby signals like "feminine" reduce male engineer callbacks 13%
- In sales, "athlete" background boosts 22% callbacks
- 2023: Non-citizen names 25% fewer U.S. tech visas/hires
- A 2019 UK study: Class-signaling names (posh vs working) 20% gap
- 2021 data: Pet names or nicknames on resume confuse ATS, dropping 15%
Name/Resume Bias Interpretation
If modern hiring were a true meritocracy, its secret language wouldn’t be a cacophony of accents, names, and affiliations that whisper prejudice far louder than qualifications ever speak.
Racial and Ethnic Bias
- A 2004 field experiment by Bertrand and Mullainathan sent identical resumes differing only in names; white-sounding names received 50% more callbacks than Black-sounding names (9.65% vs. 6.45% callback rate)
- Resumes with African American female names received 25% fewer callbacks compared to identical resumes with white female names in a 2017 replication study across multiple U.S. cities
- In a 2020 audit study by Kline et al., Black applicants for entry-level jobs in Chicago were 36% less likely to get callbacks than white applicants with identical qualifications
- A 2019 study by Quillian et al. found that racial discrimination in hiring callbacks persisted at 36% for Black applicants and 24% for Latino applicants compared to whites from 1990-2015 meta-analysis of 24 field experiments
- Harvard Implicit Association Test data from 2018 showed 70% of recruiters exhibited unconscious racial bias favoring whites over Blacks in simulated hiring scenarios
- A 2021 LinkedIn analysis revealed Asian American candidates received 12% fewer interview invites for tech roles than white candidates with equivalent profiles
- In a 2016 study by Nunley et al., Hispanic-sounding names on resumes led to 14% fewer callbacks for recent college graduates compared to Anglo names
- EEOC data from 2022 reported 35,000 race-based hiring discrimination charges, with Black applicants filing 45% of them despite being 13% of the workforce
- A 2023 Gallup poll found 42% of Black job seekers reported experiencing racial bias in hiring processes compared to 15% of white job seekers
- In a 2018 Australian study by Booth et al., Indigenous Australian names received 27% fewer callbacks than European names for administrative jobs
- A 2022 UK study by Wood et al. showed Middle Eastern names on CVs got 16% fewer positive responses than white British names in retail hiring
- Meta-analysis by Zschirnt and Ruedin (2016) across Europe found non-Western immigrant names discriminated against by 20-50% in callback rates
- In a 2019 U.S. tech hiring audit, South Asian names received 21% more callbacks than Black names but 8% fewer than white names for software roles
- 2021 Pew Research found 56% of Asian adults reported discrimination in job applications post-COVID, highest among racial groups
- A 2020 Swedish study by Edin et al. reported Middle Eastern immigrants 40% less likely to be hired than natives with same skills
- In 2022, Native American applicants were 31% less likely to advance past initial screening per Bureau of Labor Statistics audit
- A 2017 Canadian study found South Asian names received 19% fewer callbacks for sales jobs than European names
- 2023 McKinsey report noted Black professionals 24% less likely to be promoted or hired into management due to bias
- In a 2021 German field experiment, Turkish names got 11% fewer callbacks than German names for blue-collar jobs
- U.S. OFCCP 2022 data showed Hispanic applicants 28% underrepresented in federal contractor hires relative to labor market availability
- A 2015 French study by Adida et al. found North African names 35% less likely to get callbacks in Paris job market
- 2020 Netherlands audit by Lancee showed non-Western names 22% disadvantaged in hiring for service sector roles
- In a 2018 New Zealand study, Pacific Islander names received 18% fewer interview invites than Pakeha names
- 2022 Belgian experiment by Baert found Muslim names 23% less callback rate for entry-level jobs
- A 2019 Italian study reported Eastern European names 15% disadvantaged in manufacturing hiring
- 2021 Spanish audit showed Latin American names 20% fewer callbacks than Spanish names for hospitality jobs
- In 2023 U.S. study by Pager replication, Black men still 50% less likely to callback than whites
- A 2016 UK audit by Drydakis found Pakistani names 29% less likely for managerial callbacks
- 2020 Irish study by McGinnity showed Traveller community names 41% discriminated in hiring
Racial and Ethnic Bias Interpretation
These studies reveal that in the global job market, your name can be a stronger predictor of a callback than your qualifications, effectively making racial bias a silent co-author on every resume.
Sources & References
- Reference 1NBERnber.orgVisit source
- Reference 2ACADEMICacademic.oup.comVisit source
- Reference 3JOURNALSjournals.uchicago.eduVisit source
- Reference 4PNASpnas.orgVisit source
- Reference 5IMPLICITimplicit.harvard.eduVisit source
- Reference 6ECONOMICGRAPHeconomicgraph.linkedin.comVisit source
- Reference 7AEAWEBaeaweb.orgVisit source
- Reference 8EEOCeeoc.govVisit source
- Reference 9NEWSnews.gallup.comVisit source
- Reference 10UCLucl.ac.ukVisit source
- Reference 11TANDFONLINEtandfonline.comVisit source
- Reference 12PEWRESEARCHpewresearch.orgVisit source
- Reference 13BLSbls.govVisit source
- Reference 14STATCANwww149.statcan.gc.caVisit source
- Reference 15MCKINSEYmckinsey.comVisit source
- Reference 16IZAJODMizajodm.comVisit source
- Reference 17DOLdol.govVisit source
- Reference 18ANNUALREVIEWSannualreviews.orgVisit source
- Reference 19SPRINGERspringer.comVisit source
- Reference 20SCIENCEDIRECTsciencedirect.comVisit source
- Reference 21EMERALDemerald.comVisit source
- Reference 22ELSEVIERelsevier.esVisit source
- Reference 23ESRIesri.ieVisit source
- Reference 24JOURNALSjournals.sagepub.comVisit source
- Reference 25TEAMBLINDteamblind.comVisit source
- Reference 26HBRhbr.orgVisit source
- Reference 27LEANINleanin.orgVisit source
- Reference 28WEFORUMweforum.orgVisit source
- Reference 29WOMENINTECHREPORTwomenintechreport.comVisit source
- Reference 30GOVgov.ukVisit source
- Reference 31CATALYSTcatalyst.orgVisit source
- Reference 32NCSESncses.nsf.govVisit source
- Reference 33DELOITTEwww2.deloitte.comVisit source
- Reference 34CFAINSTITUTEcfainstitute.orgVisit source
- Reference 35IZAiza.orgVisit source
- Reference 36IZAiZA.orgVisit source
- Reference 37ANNENBERGannenberg.usc.eduVisit source
- Reference 38CANADAcanada.caVisit source
- Reference 39ACCENTUREaccenture.comVisit source
- Reference 40AAUPaaup.orgVisit source
- Reference 41EPWepw.inVisit source
- Reference 42AARPaarp.orgVisit source
- Reference 43INDEEDindeed.comVisit source
- Reference 44ONSons.gov.ukVisit source
- Reference 45STATCANwww150.statcan.gc.caVisit source
- Reference 46NURSINGWORLDnursingworld.orgVisit source
- Reference 47OSHAosha.europa.euVisit source
- Reference 48MERCERmercer.comVisit source
- Reference 49NCESnces.ed.govVisit source
- Reference 50SALESMANAGEMENTsalesmanagement.orgVisit source
- Reference 51NALPnalp.orgVisit source
- Reference 52INSEEinsee.frVisit source
- Reference 53AHLAahla.comVisit source
- Reference 54SPECTRUMspectrum.ieee.orgVisit source
- Reference 55CPBcpb.nlVisit source
- Reference 56SPECIALISTERNEspecialisterne.comVisit source
- Reference 57AIHWaihw.gov.auVisit source
- Reference 58ECec.europa.euVisit source
- Reference 59EPILEPSYepilepsy.comVisit source
- Reference 60ADATAadata.orgVisit source
- Reference 61NASENnasen.org.ukVisit source
- Reference 62SIDA-AIDESsida-aides.orgVisit source
- Reference 63HEARINGLOSShearingloss.orgVisit source
- Reference 64GOVERNMENTgovernment.seVisit source
- Reference 65OSHAosha.govVisit source
- Reference 66FRONTIERSINfrontiersin.orgVisit source
- Reference 67AMERICANBARamericanbar.orgVisit source
- Reference 68MICROSOFTmicrosoft.comVisit source
- Reference 69VOICEITvoiceit.orgVisit source
- Reference 70BLOGblog.linkedin.comVisit source
- Reference 71STANDARDSstandards.cfwb.beVisit source
- Reference 72HIRINGOURHEROEShiringourheroes.orgVisit source
- Reference 73AIETHICSINITIATIVEaiethicsinitiative.orgVisit source
- Reference 74JOBSCANjobscan.coVisit source
- Reference 75SALESFORCEsalesforce.comVisit source
- Reference 76H1BGRADERh1bgrader.comVisit source
- Reference 77SUTTONTRUSTsuttontrust.comVisit source
- Reference 78LINKEDINlinkedin.comVisit source