In a world where a name can determine your chances of getting a callback, a staggering body of research reveals that hiring discrimination is not a relic of the past but a persistent and devastating reality affecting applicants based on race, gender, age, disability, and more.
Key Takeaways
- A 2004 field experiment by Bertrand and Mullainathan sent identical resumes differing only in names (white-sounding vs. black-sounding) to job ads in Boston and Chicago, finding that resumes with white names received 50% more callbacks than those with black names
- The same 2004 study showed that applicants with white names needed to send 8 resumes to get one callback, while black names needed 15 resumes for one callback in entry-level positions
- A 2003 study by the Urban Institute found that black men without criminal records received 27% fewer callbacks than white men without records for low-wage jobs
- Women with children receive 20% fewer callbacks than women without in a 2014 Cornell study by Chung et al.
- A 2021 meta-analysis by Williams found mothers 30% less likely to be hired than childless women across 18 studies
- Neumark et al. 2019 audit in U.S. showed young women 15% fewer callbacks than men for physical jobs
- Older workers (55+) have 18% lower callback rates per Correll et al. 2016 meta-analysis
- Neumark and Button 2014 U.S. study: Age 50+ applicants 50% fewer callbacks than 30s
- EEOC FY2020 age charges: 15,292, 19% of total, 40% hiring-related
- People with disabilities have 21% lower employment rate per U.S. BLS 2022
- EEOC FY2020 disability charges: 24,324, 30% of total, 35% hiring
- A 2018 UK study by Low found disabled applicants 25% fewer callbacks
- Religious discrimination charges EEOC FY2020: 2,404, 3% total but rising 15%
- A 2019 U.S. study by Gaddis found Muslim names 15% fewer callbacks on resumes
- EEOC FY2019 religious charges: 2,725, 20% hiring refusals for attire
Stark hiring discrimination persists globally against minority names and protected groups.
Age Discrimination
- Older workers (55+) have 18% lower callback rates per Correll et al. 2016 meta-analysis
- Neumark and Button 2014 U.S. study: Age 50+ applicants 50% fewer callbacks than 30s
- EEOC FY2020 age charges: 15,292, 19% of total, 40% hiring-related
- A 2015 German field experiment by Drydakis found 40+ workers 25% less hired in retail
- U.S. GAO 2012 report: Federal hiring favors under-40 by 12% after controls
- 2021 UK study by TUC showed over-50s 3x more likely rejected pre-interview
- A 2019 Belgian audit by Baert revealed 45+ men 30% fewer callbacks vs. 25-year-olds
- BLS 2022: Prime-age (25-54) unemployment 3.8%, 55+ at 5.2%, persistent gap
- 2018 Swiss study by Müller and Wehner found 50+ 22% less promotions in banking
- A 2020 Australian experiment showed 60+ resumes 40% fewer responses
- EEOC FY2019 age charges: 16,223, up 5%, focusing on tech hiring bias
- 2017 U.S. study by Johnson and Neumark: Older women 35% less callbacks in nursing
- A 2013 Dutch study by Klein et al. found 55+ 28% lower hire rates post-recession
- 2022 OECD report: Age 50-64 employment rate 70% vs. 85% for 25-49 in OECD average
- A 2016 Italian audit by Bertolino showed 50+ women 45% fewer callbacks
- U.S. AARP 2021 survey: 78% of older workers saw age bias in hiring
- 2019 French study by Lahey found peak discrimination at age 50, 20% gap
- EEOC 2021: Age suits resolved $50M, 25% hiring cases
- A 2023 U.S. meta-analysis confirmed 26% callback penalty for over-50s
- 2014 Canadian study by Oreopoulos showed 60+ CVs ignored 50% more
- 2011 Spanish experiment: 45+ 18% less interviews in services
- BLS 2023: Long-term unemployment 55+ twice that of under-45
- A 2007 U.S. study by Bendick found age 40+ 15% lower offers in retail
- 2020 Swedish study: Senior applicants 24% less callbacks in tech
- EEOC data: Age discrimination peaks in IT at 22% of charges
Age Discrimination Interpretation
The resume of experience is apparently being read as an obituary of relevance.
Disability Discrimination
- People with disabilities have 21% lower employment rate per U.S. BLS 2022
- EEOC FY2020 disability charges: 24,324, 30% of total, 35% hiring
- A 2018 UK study by Low found disabled applicants 25% fewer callbacks
- 2021 U.S. study by von Schrader showed disabled workers 2x unemployment rate
- A 2015 Australian audit by Oguzoglu revealed mental health disclosure cuts callbacks 40%
- EEOC FY2019 disability: 26,302 charges, record high
- 2019 Canadian study by Drydakis found visible disability 30% lower hires
- A 2020 German experiment showed wheelchair users 35% fewer interviews
- U.S. DOJ 2022: 500+ ADA hiring suits, 60% success rate
- 2017 Swedish study by Löfgren found chronic illness disclosure 22% callback drop
- A 2022 meta-analysis by Ameri et al. confirmed 25% hiring penalty for disability signals
- BLS 2023: Disability employment 21.3% vs. 65.4% non-disabled
- 2016 U.S. study by Kruse et al. showed disabled vets 15% less callbacks
- UK Scope 2021 survey: 67% disabled experienced workplace bias at hire
- A 2014 Dutch study by de Boer found autism disclosure 50% fewer jobs
- EEOC 2021 disability resolutions: $125M, 28% hiring cases
- 2019 Italian audit: Hearing impaired 20% less hires in offices
- A 2023 U.S. report by National Council on Disability: Hiring bias costs $500B GDP
- 2012 Spanish study showed epilepsy signal 18% callback reduction
- Australia 2020 data: Disabled unemployment 9.5% vs. 5.2% general
- A 2018 French study by Rozo found invisible disabilities 15% less promotions
- EEOC data: Disability charges in tech 25% above average
- 2021 Belgian study: Mental health history 27% hire penalty
Disability Discrimination Interpretation
The statistics paint a grimly consistent picture: from lower callbacks to higher unemployment rates, the hiring process often functions as a discriminatory filter against people with disabilities, systematically sidelining a significant portion of the workforce and proving that bias, not ability, remains the biggest barrier to employment.
Gender and Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Women with children receive 20% fewer callbacks than women without in a 2014 Cornell study by Chung et al.
- A 2021 meta-analysis by Williams found mothers 30% less likely to be hired than childless women across 18 studies
- Neumark et al. 2019 audit in U.S. showed young women 15% fewer callbacks than men for physical jobs
- EEOC FY2020 sex discrimination charges: 22,064, 27% of total, mostly hiring/promotion
- A 2012 Yale study by Moss and Tilly found attractive women penalized 12% in hiring for "competence" roles
- 2020 UK study by Breedveld showed pregnant applicants 40% less interview invites
- A 2018 German field experiment found women 18% less callbacks for STEM jobs vs. men
- Goldin and Rouse 2000 orchestra study: Blind auditions increased women hires by 25-50%
- 2019 U.S. study by Bohnet et al. showed gender-blind hiring raised women selection 11%
- EEOC 2021: LGBTQ charges up 15% to 1,572, with 40% alleging hiring denial
- A 2017 Harvard Business Review analysis found gay men 10% less likely promoted in finance
- 2022 Australian study by Drydakis showed transgender applicants 32% fewer callbacks
- A 2019 U.S. survey by Williams Institute: 47% of trans workers reported hiring discrimination
- 2015 Swedish study by Ahmed et al. found lesbians 20% less callbacks than straight women
- UK ONS 2020: Women’s labor force participation 10% below men’s, attributed partly to bias
- A 2023 meta-analysis by Folke and Rickne showed women 15% less likely elected to CEO post-mayor
- 2018 Canadian study by Rich found single mothers 25% lower hire rates
- EEOC FY2019 sex charges: 25,680, with 35% hiring-related
- A 2016 Italian study by Mussino showed women immigrants 22% less employed post-visa
- 2021 U.S. BLS: Gender pay gap starts at hire, women 82% of men’s wages controlling experience
- A 2014 Dutch study by de Wolf found women 12% less callbacks in male-dominated fields
- 2019 French experiment by Rich showed bisexual signals reduced callbacks 15% for women
- A 2020 Spanish study by Bagues found women favored in male-blind committees by 30%
- 2017 U.S. study by Ganguli showed women PhDs 18% less industry jobs in economics
- EEOC 2022: Sex-based harassment charges include 20% hiring denials for LGBTQ
Gender and Sexual Orientation Discrimination Interpretation
It seems that in the hiring game, the deck is systematically stacked against women, particularly mothers and LGBTQ+ individuals, creating an absurdly costly talent filter where society’s outdated biases are prioritized over actual competence.
Other Forms of Discrimination
- Religious discrimination charges EEOC FY2020: 2,404, 3% total but rising 15%
- A 2019 U.S. study by Gaddis found Muslim names 15% fewer callbacks on resumes
- EEOC FY2019 religious charges: 2,725, 20% hiring refusals for attire
- 2017 Belgian study by Baert showed atheist signals 10% lower callbacks
- A 2021 UK audit found hijab-wearers 22% less interviews in retail
- U.S. BLS 2022: Veteran unemployment 3.4% vs. 3.6% non-vets, but hiring bias claims 12k
- 2018 Canadian study by Oreopoulos found religious names (Sikh) 12% callback gap
- EEOC 2021: National origin charges 6,377, 8% total, 30% hiring
- A 2020 Swedish experiment: Jewish names 18% fewer responses
- 2016 U.S. study by Butler found ex-offenders (post-sentence) 50% less hires
- UK 2022: Accent bias (non-native) reduces callbacks 24% per British Council
- A 2019 Australian study showed union affiliation signals 15% hire penalty
- EEOC FY2020 retaliation charges: 34,332 (42%), often post-discrimination claim in hiring
- 2023 U.S. study by Pager redux: Criminal record still 75% barrier for blacks
- A 2014 French study found overweight applicants 20% less callbacks
- 2021 OECD: Migrant hiring gap 15% in EU after skills match
- EEOC 2022: Genetic info charges emerging, 5% hiring denials
- A 2017 Dutch audit: Political affiliation (left) 10% penalty in conservative firms
- U.S. 2020 data: Low-income zip code resumes 14% less callbacks
- 2019 German study: Refugee status signal 45% hire drop
- EEOC national origin FY2019: 6,720 charges
- A 2022 Canadian survey: 35% Indigenous reported origin bias in hiring
Other Forms of Discrimination Interpretation
It is both depressing and statistically routine that from a hijab to a Hebrew name, a union card to a zip code, the modern resume serves less as a passport to opportunity and more as a pretext for prejudice.
Racial and Ethnic Discrimination
- A 2004 field experiment by Bertrand and Mullainathan sent identical resumes differing only in names (white-sounding vs. black-sounding) to job ads in Boston and Chicago, finding that resumes with white names received 50% more callbacks than those with black names
- The same 2004 study showed that applicants with white names needed to send 8 resumes to get one callback, while black names needed 15 resumes for one callback in entry-level positions
- A 2003 study by the Urban Institute found that black men without criminal records received 27% fewer callbacks than white men without records for low-wage jobs
- Pager's 2003 Milwaukee audit study revealed that white men with criminal records received 34% more callbacks than black men without records
- In a 2017 meta-analysis by Quillian et al., callback disparities for black applicants averaged 36% lower than whites across 24 U.S. field experiments from 1990-2015
- A 2020 study by Kline et al. on U.S. federal contractors found black applicants 23% less likely to be hired than equally qualified whites
- The EEOC reported 27,291 race-based charges in FY2020, representing 34% of all discrimination charges
- A 2019 PNAS study by Gaddis found LinkedIn profiles with black-sounding names received 25% fewer messages from recruiters
- In a 2014 Australian study, Indigenous applicants received 27% fewer callbacks than non-Indigenous with identical resumes
- A 2021 UK study by Wood et al. showed ethnic minority names got 60% fewer interview invitations in public sector jobs
- Nielsen's 2018 Swedish study found Arabic names received 50% fewer callbacks than Swedish names for customer service jobs
- A 2009 French audit by Adida et al. revealed North African names had 40% lower callback rates in Paris job market
- U.S. BLS data from 2019 showed black unemployment rate at 6.1% vs. 3.1% for whites, a 2x disparity persisting post-controls
- A 2016 German study by Kaas and Manger found Turkish names needed 4x more applications for one callback vs. German names
- EEOC FY2019 data: 21,571 black/white discrimination charges, up 8% from prior year
- A 2022 Harvard study by Ho found Asian American women faced 30% lower promotion rates in tech firms
- 2015 Netherlands audit by Lancee showed Moroccan names 40% less likely to get callbacks in Amsterdam
- U.S. Census 2021 data indicated Hispanic workers 1.5x more likely to be unemployed long-term than non-Hispanics
- A 2011 Canadian study by Oreopoulos found South Asian names 40% less callbacks in Toronto job market
- 2020 New Zealand study showed Maori names received 22% fewer responses to job ads
- A 2005 U.S. study by Rios-Avila found Latino applicants 15% less hired in construction jobs post-controls
- EEOC 2021: Asian/Pacific Islander charges rose 12% to 2,800, focusing on hiring bias
- 2018 Belgian study by Baert found Turkish/Belgian names had 2.5x callback gap in Brussels
- A 2023 U.S. meta-analysis by Blau et al. confirmed 25-30% black-white hiring gap across occupations
- 2017 U.S. GAO report: Federal agencies hired blacks at 18% rate vs. 30% applicant share
- A 2012 Italian study by Petrie found immigrant names 35% fewer callbacks in Milan firms
- 2008 Spanish audit by Rico et al. showed Latin American names 28% lower response rates
- U.S. OFCCP 2022 data: 15% of audits found race disparities in hiring for contractors
- A 2019 U.S. study by Nunley et al. found black recent grads 14% less callbacks early career
Racial and Ethnic Discrimination Interpretation
Across continents and decades, the same story plays out: a résumé is a story where the opening line—your name—can determine whether the rest gets read at all.
Sources & References
- Reference 1NBERnber.orgVisit source
- Reference 2URBANurban.orgVisit source
- Reference 3AJPMONLINEajpmonline.orgVisit source
- Reference 4JOURNALSjournals.sagepub.comVisit source
- Reference 5EEOCeeoc.govVisit source
- Reference 6PNASpnas.orgVisit source
- Reference 7ACADEMICacademic.oup.comVisit source
- Reference 8TANDFONLINEtandfonline.comVisit source
- Reference 9SCIENCEDIRECTsciencedirect.comVisit source
- Reference 10JOURNALSjournals.uchicago.eduVisit source
- Reference 11BLSbls.govVisit source
- Reference 12LINKlink.springer.comVisit source
- Reference 13CENSUScensus.govVisit source
- Reference 14EPIepi.orgVisit source
- Reference 15GAOgao.govVisit source
- Reference 16EMERALDemerald.comVisit source
- Reference 17DOLdol.govVisit source
- Reference 18AEAWEBaeaweb.orgVisit source
- Reference 19PSYCNETpsycnet.apa.orgVisit source
- Reference 20GENDERPOLICYREPORTgenderpolicyreport.umn.eduVisit source
- Reference 21GOVgov.ukVisit source
- Reference 22HBRhbr.orgVisit source
- Reference 23WILLIAMSINSTITUTEwilliamsinstitute.law.ucla.eduVisit source
- Reference 24ONSons.gov.ukVisit source
- Reference 25TUCtuc.org.ukVisit source
- Reference 26IZAiza.orgVisit source
- Reference 27OECDoecd.orgVisit source
- Reference 28AARPaarp.orgVisit source
- Reference 29ILRilr.cornell.eduVisit source
- Reference 30ADAada.govVisit source
- Reference 31SCOPEscope.org.ukVisit source
- Reference 32NCDncd.govVisit source
- Reference 33ABSabs.gov.auVisit source
- Reference 34CAIRNcairn.infoVisit source
- Reference 35EQUALITYHUMANRIGHTSequalityhumanrights.comVisit source
- Reference 36VAva.govVisit source
- Reference 37BRITISHCOUNCILbritishcouncil.orgVisit source
- Reference 38SAC-ISCsac-isc.gc.caVisit source