Intersectionality and Non-Reporting Behavior: Perceptions from Women of Color in Federal Law Enforcement

Abstract

Since the passage of the No FEAR Act of 2002, scholars across various disciplines have examined women’s reporting behavior toward sex-based discrimination. Most of the scholarship has concentrated on why women do not report sex-based discrimination, with this study being no exception. Missing, however, from this research is the intersectionality of race and gender, as most studies capture women as a homogeneous group without regard to race or ethnicity. Using a subsample of women who responded “yes” to having experienced sex-based discrimination (n = 550) in the workplace but chose not to report the unlawful behavior, this study employs a series of mean comparisons to differentiate women’s non-reporting behavior by race or ethnicity. The findings suggest women of color as a group, as well as African-American and Latina respondents by their respective minority race or ethnic subgroup, have differences in non-reporting behavior in comparison to White women. These findings are important because they illustrate a more accurate examination of women’s reporting behavior in the workplace.

Keywords

intersectionality sex-based discrimination reporting behavior women of color race ethnicity

Since the enactment of the Notification and Federal Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (hereafter designated as the No FEAR Act), scholars across various disciplines have examined women’s reporting behavior toward sex-based discrimination, with public administration being no exception. This dialog is essential because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 2020a) received 23,532 formal complaints alleging sex-based discrimination in FY2019 alone—the fourth most frequently charged basis of employment discrimination—next to retaliation—(39,110), disability—(24,238), and race-based filings (23,976). The EEOC (2020b) describes sex-based discrimination as involving “any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment” unfavorably because of an applicant or employee’s sex. Furthermore, sexual harassment is a mode of sex-based discrimination and includes “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature [that] is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision” (EEOC, 2020b).

While some scholars have recognized why women will respond more assertively to reporting sex-based discrimination (e.g., Chaiyavej & Morash, 2009; Haarr & Morash, 2013; Yu & Lee, 2019, 2020), most of the literature—with this study being no exception—has focused on why women do not report sex-based discrimination, with fear of retaliation as the most common response for non-reporting (EEOC, 2016; Reese & Lindenberg, 2005; Rubin & Alteri, 2019; Yu & Lee, 2019). Other common responses for non-reporting include fear of stigma, self-blame, and inaction or disbelief on claims filed (Department of Justice, 2018; EEOC, 2016). Furthermore, despite mandates by the No FEAR Act, which increases agency accountability for acts of discrimination or retaliation against federal employees, non-reporting appears to be widespread in masculine occupations such as federal law enforcement (Department of Justice, 2018; Yu, 2017)—the target population of this study—where there are fewer than 14% women in the workforce (Brooks, 2019a). Missing, however, from this research is the intersectionality of race and being a woman when examining non-reporting behavior as most studies portray women as a uniformed group without regard to race or ethnicity. The present study aims to fill this gap.

Using a subsample of women who responded “yes” to having experienced sex-based discrimination (n = 550) at their current employment but chose not to report the unlawful behavior, this study employs a t-test to differentiate the non-reporting behavior of White women and all women of color. Furthermore, acknowledging that women of color are not a monolithic group, a one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) model between White women and each minority race or ethnic subgroup respectively (e.g., African American, Asian American/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, Native American, and multi-racial) are also presented in this article. This arrangement supports the reality that women of color as a group, or by each minority race or ethnic subgroup, do not inevitably impart the same occupational experiences as White women (Browne & Misra, 2003; Hamidullah & Riccucci, 2017; Nelson & Piatak, 2019).

This dialog is important for several reasons. First, despite the passage of the No FEAR Act, reporting workplace discrimination continues to be a struggle for many women regardless of race or ethnicity, and scholarship should continue to monitor its progress. Second, focusing on the intersectionality of race and being a woman provides a more accurate assessment of the experience women—especially women of color—encounter when faced with the decision to report or not report discriminatory behavior. Finally, this study answers the call to move beyond traditional frameworks such as representative bureaucracy and to adopt other theoretical perspectives, such as intersectionality, in order to synergistically focus on race, gender, and social equity in public administration (Bearfield, 2009; Blessett, 2020; Blessett et al., 2016; Breslin et al., 2017; Wise & Tschirhart, 2000) and contribute to the growing research in this area (e.g., Blessett et al., 2019; Brenner, 2009; Gaynor, 2018; Hamidullah & Riccucci, 2017; Lee et al., 2020; Nelson & Piatak, 2019). Although this study captures a specific population in the federal workforce, its implications have significant outcomes for other populations in public service.

This article proceeds with a brief description of the No FEAR Act and federal law enforcement prior to outlining a theoretical overview of intersectionality. The next section describes data and methodology and presents empirical findings. The article concludes with a discussion of the findings, as well as limitations and avenues for future research.

No Fear Act and Federal Law Enforcement

As mentioned previously, the No FEAR Act, which took effect on October 1, 2003, is designed to enhance agency accountability for acts of discrimination or reprisal against federal employees. Specifically, this Act makes federal agencies individually accountable for violations of anti-discrimination and whistleblower protection laws (e.g., Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; American with Disabilities Act of 1990, 2008; Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1991), requiring each federal agency to post on its public website certain summary statistical data relating to equal employment opportunity complaints filed against the agency. This data must include the current fiscal year, as well as the five previous fiscal years for comparative purposes, and must be updated quarterly. The posting of such data on agency websites is intended to assist Congress, as well as the agencies themselves and the public, in determining if agencies are embracing their equal employment opportunity responsibilities.

In addition, the No FEAR Act requires federal agencies to provide training and written notification on employee rights and remedies to federal anti-discrimination and retaliation laws, in order to empower all employees to report unlawful behavior. This is important because retaliation is the most common response for non-reporting, but it is also the most frequently claimed basis of employment discrimination (EEOC, 2016, 2020). In fact, nearly half of all charges filed each year allege retaliation after an employee files an initial discrimination complaint (Rubin & Alteri, 2019). Furthermore, “retaliation is the most common issue alleged by federal employees and the most common discrimination finding [among all] federal sector cases” (El Kharzazi et al., 2014).

Despite these efforts by the No FEAR Act, non-reporting appears to be widespread in masculine occupations such as federal law enforcement (Department of Justice, 2018; Yu, 2017). For example, in a follow-up study on the challenges women face in federal law enforcement, Yu (2017) found that approximately 75% of the women in her study who experienced sex-based discrimination did not make a formal report out of fear of career reprisal or being “labeled as a troublemaker” but primarily because they “believed nothing would be done” (p. 213). Likewise, in a review of gender equity in the four law enforcement components in the Department of Justice (2018)—that is, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Drug Enforcement Administration; Federal Bureau of Investigation; and U.S. Marshal’s Service—less than 25% of female respondents who served in a law enforcement capacity claimed they would file a formal report, despite 43% of female officers also responding they had experienced some form of sex-based discrimination during the past 5 years. Fear of stigma and retaliation were the top two responses for non-reporting in their report (Department of Justice, 2018). Although the target population of this study focus on federal law enforcement, these findings from Yu (2017) and the Department of Justice (2018) lend support to previous studies that examine non-reporting behavior in local law enforcement that had similar results (e.g., Chaiyavej & Morash, 2009; Collins, 2004; Maher, 2010; Slonaker et al., 2001). Furthermore, research in local law enforcement has shown that women are subjecting themselves to some forms of sex-based discrimination—namely sexual harassment—in order to fit in (Garcia, 2003; Slonaker et al., 2001), especially since law enforcement “may have [a] high tolerance for sexual harassment” (Harrison, 2012, p. 227), negating the need to file a formal report.

These findings come as no surprise. Again, women constitute less than 14% of all federal law enforcement officers (Brooks, 2019a)—and a much smaller ratio of leadership positions (Department of Justice, 2018; Yu, 2020)—with little fluctuation in the past 20 years. For example, in 2000, women’s presence in federal law enforcement was actually higher and recorded at 14.4% (Reaves & Hart, 2001). For comparisons at the local level, women account for 12.3% of all officers in police departments and 13.6% of all deputies in sheriffs’ offices (Brooks, 2019b; Hyland & Davis, 2019). The low percentages are often attributed to decades of research illustrating a social structure and organizational culture resistant to women and will not be completely revisited here (see Posey et al., 2020; Rabe-Hemp & Miller, 2018; Yu & Lee, 2020, for recent literature review). However, the National Institute of Justice (2019) maintains there is still insufficient research for understanding the unique challenges that women face in law enforcement nor how best to mitigate or overcome these challenges (more will be discussed on this later in the article).

Law enforcement has an unwritten but universal policy relic—known as the code of silence—that obstruct officers from reporting misconduct, to include allegations of sex-based discrimination, against fellow officers (Chaiyavej & Morash, 2009). If women violate this code, they risk retaliation—both professionally and socially—and are stigmatized and excluded by their male coworkers and supervisors from gaining access to the informal networks critical for career success (Collins, 2004; Department of Justice, 2018; Dodge et al., 2010; Posey et al., 2020; Rabe-Hemp, 2008). This code is particularly harmful for women because research has also shown that sex-based discrimination is widespread in law enforcement (Chaiyavej & Morash, 2009; Department of Justice, 2018; Rabe-Hemp, 2008; Rabe-Hemp & Miller, 2018; Somvadee & Morash, 2008; Yu, 2017). Regardless, as mentioned previously, fear of stigma and career retaliation, self-blame, and inaction or disbelief on claims filed are common responses to non-reporting even without the code of silence (Collins, 2004; Department of Justice, 2018; EEOC, 2016; Maher, 2010; Yu, 2017).

Therefore, many women will choose not to report. Missing from this body of research is the intersectionality of race and being a woman when examining non-reporting behavior as most studies portray women as a uniformed group without regard to race or ethnicity. However, the interaction of race or ethnicity and being a woman may refine our knowledge on reporting behavior in the federal government and portray a more accurate examination of women’s behavior in the workplace. The next section provides an overview of intersectionality from inception to the recent call for embracing such frameworks.

Intersectionality

The term intersectionality is first introduced by Crenshaw (1989) in her critique of anti-discrimination doctrine and anti-racist politics. She initially uses this term to pronounce the marginalization that African-American women experience in lawsuits because of the courts’ failure to consider intersectionality and contends that “the intersectional experience is greater than the sum of racism and sexism [and that] any analysis that does not take intersectionality into account cannot sufficiently address the particular manner in which Black women [or other women of color] are subordinated” (p. 140). This is important if the research community intends to illustrate a more accurate examination of women’s experiences in the workplace.

Incidentally, intersectionality grew out of other emerging perspectives such as critical race theory and multiracial feminist theory, whose frameworks examine systems of oppression for traditionally marginalized groups. To illustrate, critical race theory “is a race-conscious theory that [features] race as the central construct for [addressing] inequality” in a system of oppression defined by White supremacy (Blessett, 2015, p. 9; Zamudio et al., 2011). It also “challenges status quo perspectives, methodologies, narratives, institutions, and structures through the. . . lived experiences of nonwhite Americans” (Gaynor & Blessett, 2014, p. 263; Zamudio et al., 2011). Although critical race theory was conceived to transform the relationship between race, law, and power (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001), it also provided a means to consider how other marginalized identities are overlooked, such as gender, class, and sexual orientation (Gaynor, 2018; Hassell & Brandl, 2009; Holvino, 2010).

Likewise, multiracial feminist theory contextualizes gender inequality with race, underscoring a dual system of oppression for minority women (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). Its origins began when women of color criticized middle-class White women for focusing on women’s experiences along White patriarchal oppression while ignoring other simultaneous inequalities such as race (Harnois, 2005; Zinn & Dill, 1996). Although there are similarities between the Women’s Liberation Movement (i.e., first and second wave feminism) and the Civil Rights movement, there was very little collaboration with African American or other women of color during this time (Marbley, 2005). This critique informed third wave feminism, highlighting the intersectionality of race and being a woman toward adverse experiences (Harnois, 2005; Zinn & Dill, 1996). In fact, “a central tenet of third wave feminism [was] to include women who [had] previously been excluded from [the women’s] social movement due to race” (Rasmusson, 2004, p. 429). Therefore, Crenshaw provides a voice for African-American feminists detached from the “mainstream” feminist movement to “examine how multiple identities create multiple facets of inequalities or oppression” (Hamidullah & Riccucci, 2017, p. 107).

Consequently, intersectionality becomes a useful framework for shaping women’s workplace experiences because it “recognizes that systems of power such as race and gender do not act alone to shape our experiences but rather are inextricably linked and simultaneously experienced” (Burgess-Proctor, 2006, p. 31). Furthermore, “gender is tied to race [and] the interrelationship among the [two] factors is exacerbated by [their] influences (Stivers, 2002, p. 5). Incidentally, intersectionality also examines other social categories to interact with race and gender, such as age, class, sexual orientation, religion, education, and length of service (Blessett et al., 2019; Bose, 2012; Gaynor, 2018; Hamidullah & Riccucci, 2017; Hassell & Brandl, 2009; Holvino, 2010); however, this study focuses primarily on race and being a woman. Accordingly, women of color—in comparison to White women and men, as well as men of color—will experience and have a different perspective or orientation in the workplace (Breslin et al., 2017; Feeney & Camarena, 2021; Hamidullah & Riccucci, 2017; Hsieh & Winslow, 2006; Lee et al., 2020; Nelson & Piatak, 2019; Posey et al., 2020).

For example, research has shown that women of color experience higher degrees of race- and sex-based discrimination in comparison to White female officers and minority male officers respectively (Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; Felkenes & Schroedel, 1993; Haarr & Morash, 2004). This comes as no surprise. As mentioned previously, law enforcement is a masculine occupation. However, it is also a predominantly White occupation (Brooks, 2019a, 2019b; Hyland & Davis, 2019) with a strong organizational culture resistant to women (Posey et al., 2020; Rabe-Hemp & Miller, 2018; Yu & Lee, 2020), resulting in a higher level of mistreatment by White male officers toward minority female officers (Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; Haarr & Morash, 2004). Furthermore, Hassell and Brandl (2009) found that women of color also experience higher levels of workplace stress in comparison to White female officers and all male officers, regardless of race or ethnicity, due to lack of workplace support and influence. While most of the identifying combinations in their study shared similar concerns and problems—for example, the authors also included sexual orientation, education, and length of service in their analyses—“being female and being a racial/ethnic minority [brought] with it substantially (but not uniformly) different experiences on the job compared to male and White officers” (p. 423). Hence, the aforementioned studies suggest that race or ethnic identity likely portray a higher role with impacting women’s experiences and behaviors in the workplace, revealing the unique experiences of women who represent multiple marginalized identity or social categories.

Since her pioneering study on the interaction of race and gender (Crenshaw, 1989), intersectionality has emerged as an interdisciplinary theoretical framework and continues to be explored in many disciplines (e.g., Browne & Misra, 2003; Byars-Winston et al., 2015; Crenshaw, 1994; Holvino, 2010; Luna, 2016; Posey et al., 2020), with public administration being no exception. However, it has only recently garnered attention among scholars who examine diversity and inclusion within the public sector (e.g., Brenner, 2009; Feeney & Camarena, 2021; Hamidullah & Riccucci, 2017; Lee et al., 2020; Nelson & Piatak, 2019). For example, in one of the first studies in public administration that investigated intersectionality as a framework for role orientation and policy intentions, Brenner (2009) found that the interaction of race or ethnicity and being a woman mattered when Latina administrators determined the policy goals they would advance in their official positions, ultimately impacting their assigned municipality and Latino/a community. Although race and ethnicity served as the primary lens for the Latina administrators, they also drew on their feminist point of view.

Furthermore, in an exploratory study that examined federal employee’s satisfaction with family-friendly policies aimed at the promotion of work-life balance, Hamidullah and Riccucci (2017) found that women of color, specifically African-American and Latina respondents, had lower satisfaction with work-life balance in comparison to White women. Although women serve as the primary beneficiaries from such policies, they do not appear to benefit all women equally. In addition, these results are particularly important to agency decision-makers because “if there are deficiencies in the availability and access to family-friendly policies, organizations may find [that] certain groups are disproportionately affected by the policy outcomes [and] could be systematically excluded from family-friendly policies” (p. 115).

Likewise, in an examination of leadership representation and inclusion in the federal government, Nelson and Piatak (2019) found that women of color were significantly less likely to be supervisors nor feel included in the workplace in comparison to White women. To begin, although most women encounter gender stereotypes as barriers to advancement within an organization, women of color “face the added barrier of being non-White” (p. 14). In addition, there were significant variations across the inclusion scale, revealing important yet opposing differences and demonstrating the value of intersectionality. For example, women of color perceived higher levels of cooperation and empowerment in comparison to White women but lower levels of openness, fairness, and support. Nelson and Piatak (2019) suggest that cultural differences by the women of color led to the higher levels of cooperation and empowerment, whereas social closure theory—the hoarding of resources by the power group to maintain dominance—led to the lower levels of fairness, openness, and support. Finally, in a study on the determinants of job satisfaction among federal employees, Lee et al. (2020) found signs of intersectionality, in that pay satisfaction and diversity management were more important to women of color and less important to White men. Their findings “provide a bigger picture for analysis regarding gender and ethnic differences among these employees,” highlighting the importance of employment development by agency leaders (p. 19).

As part of an exchange for the development of a feminist theory in public administration, Bearfield (2009) “argues that the field must [also] embrace research focused on the intersection of multiple identity categories such as race” (p. 384), in order to prevent the overgeneralization on women’s experiences, while revealing the unique experiences of women who exemplify several marginalized categories. Furthermore, Blessett (2020) “advocates for the adoption of an intersectional framework in public administration because [it] provides administrators with the knowledge, skills, and tools to incorporate multiple perspectives and embrace difference” (p. 1). Therefore, intersectionality is an appropriate framework for examining the non-reporting behavior of female officers in federal law enforcement because it provides a more accurate assessment of workplace experience.

Although there are no prior studies that have investigated the intersectionality of race or ethnicity and being a woman when examining non-reporting behavior, two themes are clear: first, most women choose not to report sex-based discrimination in federal law enforcement (Department of Justice, 2018; Yu, 2017) and second, women of color have demonstrated differences in their workplace experiences in comparison to White women (Hamidullah & Riccucci, 2017; Lee et al., 2020; Nelson & Piatak, 2019). Accordingly, this study expects women of color as a group, and by their respective minority race or ethnic subgroups, to have differences in non-reporting behavior in comparison to White women. Furthermore, research highlighting the double oppression that women of color experience in the workplace would suggest that women of color as a group, and by their respective minority race or ethnic subgroups, are likely to fear retaliation and stigma, as well as abide by the code of silence, at a higher rate when faced with the decision to report or not report discriminatory behavior. Thus,

Hypothesis 1: Women of color as a group will be less likely to report sex-based discrimination in comparison to White women in federal law enforcement.

Hypothesis 2: Women of color by their respective minority race or ethnic subgroup will be less likely to report sex-based discrimination in comparison to White women in federal law enforcement.

Data and Methodology

Data

To test these hypotheses, observations made in this study were drawn from a subsample of women who responded “yes” to having experienced sex-based discrimination (n = 550) at their current employment, representing 46.6% of the overall sample (N = 1,179) of respondents. In addition, because women are grossly underrepresented in federal law enforcement—as mentioned previously, women represent less than 14% of all federal officers in the workforce (Brooks, 2019a)—the primary data was collected from two federal law enforcement agencies who were directly invited to participate in this study because they both had a higher representation of women in their workforce (e.g., in comparison to the national average), ensuring a sufficient availability of female respondents.¹ Furthermore, since the aims of this study capture reporting behavior, the responses from both agencies were combined to enable a larger response of women who experienced sex-based discrimination.

To encourage maximum voluntary participation, a senior representative from both agencies transmitted the online survey to all potential respondents,² using their work email accounts, and remained open for 4 weeks with an email reminder sent after the second week. (Note: The first agency administered the survey in late 2016 and the second agency in early 2017). The effort yielded a combined response rate of 39.9%. If respondents identified as male or a non-sworn officer (e.g., gender and occupation were captured as exclusionary variables), the online survey was programmed to terminate. Cases where respondents skipped the central questions operationalizing the primary research variables (i.e., race or ethnicity and reporting behavior) were also excluded from the subsample. Finally, although the survey collected responses to other occupational barriers in federal law enforcement, due to the specific aims of this study (i.e., reporting behavior), only sex-based discrimination is examined.

Race or ethnicity served as the primary independent variable in this study. As Table 1 shows, respondents were disproportionately White. However, each subgroup (i.e., African American [4.4%], Asian American/Pacific Islander [2.9%], Latina [8.9%], White [78.2%], Native American [0.4%], or multi-racial [5.3%])—to include all women of color—were coded and analyzed as a dummy variable. Reporting sex-based discrimination served as the dependent variable. A two-part question was employed: “I experienced sex-based discrimination in my current employment” (0 = no [629]; 1 = yes [550]), resulting in the subsample used in this study, and “If you have experienced sex-based discrimination, did you report it?” (1 = no [472]; 0 = yes [78]). An overwhelming majority (85.8%) of female officers chose not to report the unlawful behavior. To mitigate individual variances with terminology, the definition of sex-based discrimination was provided in the survey instrument.³

Table 1.

Descriptive Summary by Race or Ethnicity (n = 550).

	White (n = 430) (%)	Latina (n = 49) (%)	Multi (n = 29) (%)	AA (n = 24) (%)	AAPI (n = 16) (%)	NA (n = 2) (%)	χ²/df, p
Age
Under 35 years	15.7	10.4	10.3	8.3	12.5	50.0	10.87/10
35–45 years	47.4	58.3	48.3	66.7	68.8	50.0	p = .37
Over 45 years	36.9	31.3	41.4	25.0	18.8	0
Children
No	44.7	42.6	37.0	52.2	33.3	50.0	1.99/5
Yes	55.3	57.4	63.0	47.8	66.7	50.0	p = .85
Tenure
Under 5 years	8.2	4.1	0	4.2	6.3	0	11.04/10
5–15 years	56.2	57.1	58.6	83.3	62.5	50.0	p = .35
Over 15 years	35.7	38.8	41.4	12.5	31.3	50.0
Education
Bachelor	37.4	57.1	34.5	20.8	50.0	50.0	14.78/10
Master	60.7	40.8	62.0	79.2	43.8	50.0	p = .14
Doctoral	1.9	2.0	3.4	0	6.3%	0
Relationship status
Not married	37.1	46.9	31.0	45.8	18.8	50.0	5.66/5
Married	62.9	53.1	69.0	54.2	81.3	50.0	p = .34
Grade
Under GS-13	14.1	14.3	6.9	4.2	12.5	0	4.69/10
GS-13/GS-14	79.6	77.6	82.8	91.6	81.3	100	p = .91
GS-15/SES	6.3	8.2	10.3	4.2	6.3	0

Note. Multi = two or more races; AA = African American; AAPI = Asian American/Pacific Islander; NA = Native American.

The survey also collected responses to other social and employment variables to describe the respondents. They include: age (under 35 years [14.6%], 35–45 years [49.9%], over 45 years [35.5%]); children (no [44.1%], yes [55.9%]); agency tenure (under 5 years [7.1%], 5–15 years [57.7%], over 15 years [35.2%]); education level (Bachelor [38.7%], Master [59.3%], Doctoral [2.0%]); relationship status (not married [37.5%], married [62.5%]); and grade (under GS-13 [13.2%], GS-13/GS-14 [80.3%], GS-15/Senior Executive Service [6.6%]).⁴ Comparing across race or ethnicity, Table 1 shows no statistically significant differences on any of the social and employment characteristics. Given this, no further variables were interacted with race and being a woman in the analyses.

Analysis

An independent-samples t-test was employed to differentiate the non-reporting behavior between White women and all women of color. This is important because much of the literature still describes women of color without regard to specific individual race or ethnic identities (e.g., Feeney & Camarena, 2021). However, acknowledging that women of color are not a monolithic group, a one-way ANOVA model was performed between White women and each minority race or ethnic subgroup respectively to accurately differentiate women’s non-reporting behavior. Accordingly, this study extends the literature on non-reporting behavior by incorporating an intersectional framework, namely race and being a woman.

A t-test is an appropriate method of analysis because this study is determining whether there is a difference in the mean of two groups (e.g., White women and all women of color). It is also more efficient than regression analysis because the predictor variables (e.g., race or ethnicity) are measured as a binary or categorical variable. A one-way ANOVA model and post hoc test is an appropriate method of analysis to compare White women and the other women of color by respective minority race or ethnic subgroups because it mitigates the potential of a large type 1 error if multiple uses of t-tests are analyzed for the subgroups.

Finally, this study was designed as an introductory dialog on the non-reporting behavior of women of color and does not account for other occupational characteristics as potential mitigating factors. Future scholars should incorporate these variables for further analysis. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was employed for all analysis. The findings are presented in the next section.

Findings

Table 2 provides the results on a t-test between White women and all women of color. The findings suggest there is a statistically significant difference in response between the two groups (p = .008), supporting the framework of intersectionality. However, the mean difference (.096) in the non-reporting was a surprise. For example, women of color as a group (78%) were more likely to report sex-based discrimination in comparison to White women (88%), rejecting the first hypothesis.

Table 2.

t-Test for Non-Reporting (n = 550).

Race or ethnicity	n	M (SD)	M diff.	t	Sig.
White	430	.88 (.326)
Women of color	120	.78 (.414)	.096	2.670	.008

Note. Significant item is in bold.

Likewise, Table 3 provides the results on a one-way ANOVA and post hoc test between White women and each minority race or ethnic subgroup respectively. Again, the findings suggest there is a statistically significant difference in response between White women and two of the minority race or ethnic subgroups, specifically African-American (p = .039) and Latina (p = .019) respondents, supporting the framework of intersectionality. However, as with the first hypothesis, the mean difference (0.212 and 0.165, respectively) was a surprise, suggesting that African-American (67%) and Latina respondents (71%) were more likely to report sex-based discrimination in comparison to White women (88%), rejecting the second hypothesis. Although multi-racial women were the only subgroup to have a negative mean difference (−0.086), suggesting that multi-racial women (97%) were less likely to report sex-based discrimination in comparison to White women, there were no statistically significant differences in response between White women and Asian-American (p = 1.000), Native-American (p = .628), and multi-racial (p = .779) women, respectively.

Table 3.

One-Way ANOVA for Non-Reporting (n = 550).

Race or ethnicity	n	M (SD)	M diff.	F	Sig.
Reference group
White	430	.88 (.326)
Comparison groups
Latina	49	.71 (.456)	.165	10.227	.019
Multi-racial	29	.97 (.186)	−.086	1.988	.779
African American	24	.67 (.482)	.212	9.081	.039
Asian American	16	.88 (.342)	.004	0.002	1.000
Native American	2	.50 (.707)	.379	2.662	.628

Note. Significant items are in bold.

Discussion

The findings in this study illustrate the importance of examining women’s non-reporting behavior using an intersectional framework and has both practical and theoretical implications to federal agencies and the field of public administration respectively.

Practical Implications

First, this study demonstrates that non-reporting continues to be a problem for federal agencies. In fact, the EEOC (2016) claims that 87% to 94% of all sex-based discrimination, on average, goes unreported. This undermines the process, creating artificially low numbers of reported discrimination and obscuring the magnitude of the problem. The current study is consistent with these assertions at 85.8%. Although women of color as a group, as well as African-American and Latina respondents by their respective minority race or ethnic subgroups, have statistically significant differences in non-reporting behavior and were found to more likely report sex-based discrimination in comparison to White women, the magnitude of the differences do not reduce the fact that the overwhelming majority of women in this study, regardless of race or ethnicity, still chose not to report the discriminatory behavior. However, illustrating the responses by race or ethnicity and being a woman not only provides a more accurate examination of women’s reporting behavior in the workplace, it may also become useful knowledge when federal agencies improve public service delivery, namely their process and mechanism for reporting.

In addition, although the No FEAR Act requires federal agencies to provide training and written notification on employee rights and remedies to federal anti-discrimination and retaliation laws—in order to empower all employees to report unlawful behavior—it does not appear to be achieving its intended effect, or at least not enough. To illustrate, complaints against sex-based discrimination have shown little fluctuation in charges filed over the past 15 years: 23,094 charges filed in 2005 in comparison to the 23,532 charges filed in 2019 (EEOC, 2020). Furthermore, sex-based discrimination is magnified in masculine occupations such as law enforcement because women not only fear retaliation and stigma, self-blame, and inaction or disbelief on claims filed, they also have to contend with an additional obstacle—the code of silence—when deciding to report or not report discriminatory behavior (Chaiyavej & Morash, 2009; Department of Justice, 2018; EEOC, 2016; Yu, 2017).

Regardless, practitioners and scholars must continue and work together to change the organizational culture in law enforcement. The National Institute of Justice (2019) recently held a “Research Summit on Women in Policing” with prominent scholars and practitioners and contends there is still insufficient research for understanding the unique challenges that women face in law enforcement nor how best to mitigate or overcome these challenges. The following are just several of the questions that the National Institute of Justice (2019) put forward in a research agenda that complements the current study:

What negative aspects of law enforcement culture need to change for women to be better integrated into and integral to departments (p. 8)?

What strategies create sustained cultural changes that lead to improvements in the representation and experiences of women in law enforcement (p. 4)?

What are effective interventions to reduce the prevalence of discrimination, to include harassment (p. 8)?

How can we foster the courage to be accountable for improving the representation and experiences of women in law enforcement (p. 10)?

What is the relationship between race, ethnicity, and gender in these issues? What are the specific experiences of officers who are women of color, and how does the intersection of gender and race affect the challenges women of color face in this occupation (p. 5)?

With almost 100 federal law enforcement agencies in the federal domain (Bumgarner et al., 2017), changing an organizational culture is no easy task (Yu & Lee, 2019). However, improving and enforcing anti-discrimination and retaliations laws, as well as the process for reporting unlawful behavior, must be at the forefront. Furthermore, efforts for improving diversity and inclusion should be continued to increase women’s participation in law enforcement and to reduce discriminatory behavior in the workplace.

Theoretical Implications

Second, in response to calls to move beyond traditional frameworks such as representative bureaucracy and to adopt different theoretical perspectives (Bearfield, 2009; Blessett, 2020; Blessett et al., 2016; Breslin et al., 2017; Wise & Tschirhart, 2000), this study provides another setting for examining how race or ethnicity and being a woman impacts workplace experiences, namely reporting behavior. Although past studies would suggest that women of color heighten the disadvantage for women in general due to their multiple marginalized identities, that was not the case here. In this study, women of color as a group, and African-American and Latina respondents by their respective minority race or ethnic subgroup, were more likely to report sex-based discrimination in comparison to White women.

These findings, however, can be seen as a positive and perhaps suggest that women of color are more used to having to stand up for themselves and bearing the associated fear and stigma when faced with the decision to report discriminatory behavior. This is partially consistent with past research that demonstrates that women of color perceive higher levels of empowerment in comparison to White women (Nelson & Piatak, 2019). Although the variable of empowerment has been studied in multiple settings (see Sabharwal, 2015, for recent literature review), Nelson and Piatak (2019) refers to empowerment as feelings of inclusion, which could be seen as women of color feeling more comfortable in the workplace and standing up for themselves when needed. According to Alkadry (1997), “administrative trends such as empowerment. . . de-emphasize the power of organizations [and] is an open invitation for women, minorities and other traditionally suppressed perspectives to work their way into the bureaucracy” (p. 110). Furthermore, research has shown that mentorship (Yu & Lee, 2019) and rank (Haarr & Morash, 2013) also positively impact reporting behavior but neither of these studies collected race or interacted race with being a woman other than for descriptive purposes. Regardless, Nelson and Piatak (2019) contends that “higher levels of empowerment could be a major advantage in the workplace [for women of color], such as in mentoring, training, leadership [and reducing turnover intentions]” (p. 14). This study now adds reporting behavior to this list. Unfortunately, the current study did not expand on why women did or did not report unlawful behavior; thus, more research is needed in this area.

Nonetheless, this underscores the importance of intersectionality as an improved framework for examining women’s experiences and reporting behavior in the workplace, and highlights the need to reveal such complexities. The prevailing nature of public administration scholarship is to treat women as a homogenous group. However, as this study has shown, aggregated data can obscure the nature of the problem both good and bad. Furthermore, this study agrees with Blessett (2020) that,

As a social science discipline and field of practice, public administration must prioritize the lived experiences and marginalized voices of the citizenry to the same extent that it prioritizes White perspectives and quantitative measurements. Incorporating a wider array of knowledge into the discipline can help inform policy decisions and influence administrative actions, particularly as information is situated within the real-world context of public administration research and practice (p. 2).

Regardless, while prior research exists on why women do not report sex-based discrimination, more work needs to be done in this area in order to improve the process for reporting inequities for all women.

Conclusion

In sum, the intent of the current study was to extend knowledge on women’s non-reporting behavior by incorporating race or ethnicity as an interacting variable. This is important because the foundational goals of the No FEAR Act is to ensure claimants report discriminatory behavior. In addition, it provides another public administration setting for examining how race or ethnicity and being a woman impacts workplace experiences, embracing a public administration call to employ synergistic frameworks such as intersectionality. Future scholars are encouraged to incorporate an intersectional lens to their own studies in order to reveal the multiple dimensions of social and structural inequalities in the workforce. Interestingly, this study found that women of color as a group, and African-American and Latina respondents by their respective minority race or ethnic subgroups, were more likely to report sex-based discrimination in comparison to White women, further illustrating a more complete picture of non-reporting behavior in the workplace. It also emphasizes that differences can be positive. Regardless, the federal government must continue its plight for reducing sex-based discrimination and encouraging all employees to report unlawful behavior.

While these findings are important, they are not without limitations. First, the small sample size of each minority race or ethnic subgroup limits the sampling frame and precludes generalizing beyond participants studied. Second, the sample may also have lower non-reporting percentages because the agencies selected for this study had more women, which would increase reporting behavior through solidarity. Third, the addition of “multi-racial” as one of the categories for race or ethnicity likely influenced the findings since one or more of the “two or more races” that define the multi-racial category is likely a minority race or ethnicity. Fourth, public administration scholars need to be careful when using race and ethnicity as a quantitative variable because research shows these ideas are socially constructed. Fifth, as mentioned previously, this study does not account for other occupational characteristics as potential mitigating factors, which may alter the findings. Future scholars should consider incorporating these additional variables to portray a more complete picture of women’s non-reporting behavior. Finally, this study takes into account respondents’ bias and recognizes that members of a minority race or ethnic group may under- or over-report incidences of discriminatory conduct. Despite these limitations, this study demonstrates the value of intersectionality in order to portray an improved picture of women’s non-reporting behavior and contributes to the growing body of literature on why women do not report sex-based discrimination in the workplace.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the three blind reviewers for their constructive criticism and thoughtful feedback.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Helen H. Yu

Notes

Author Biography

Helen H. Yu is an Associate Professor and Graduate Chair of the Public Administration Program at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. Her research interests include the recruitment, retention, and promotion of women in federal law enforcement.

References

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 § 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (1967).

Alkadry

M. G.

(1997). The feminine mystique of public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 19(1), 106–112.

American with Disabilities Act of 1990 § 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990).

American with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 § 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (2008).

Bearfield

D. A.

(2009). Equity at the intersection: Public administration and the study of gender. Public Administration Review, 69(3), 383–386.

Blessett

(2015). Disenfranchisement: Historical underpinnings and contemporary manifestations. Public Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 3–50.

Blessett

(2020). Rethinking the administrative state through an intersectional framework. Administration Theory & Praxis, 42(1), 1–5.

Blessett

Dodge

Edmond

Goerdel

H. T.

Gooden

S. T.

Headley

A. M.

Riccucci

N. M.

Williams

B. N.

(2019). Social equity in public administration: A call to action. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(4), 283–299.

Blessett

Gaynor

T. S.

Witt

Alkadry

M. G.

(2016). Counternarratives as critical perspectives in public administration curricula. Administration Theory & Praxis, 38(4), 267–284.

10.

Bose

C. E.

(2012). Intersectionality and global gender inequality. Gender & Society, 26(1), 67–72.

11.

Brenner

C. T.

(2009). Latina administrators in local government: The interplay of role orientation and policy intentions. Administration & Society, 40(1), 825–851.

12.

Breslin

R. A.

Pandey

Riccucci

N. M.

(2017). Intersectionality in public leadership research: A review and future research agenda. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(2), 160–182.

13.

Brooks

(2019a). Federal law enforcement officers, 2016. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fleo16st.pdf

14.

Brooks

(2019b). Sheriff’s offices, 2016: Personnel. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/so16p.pdf

15.

Browne

Misra

(2003). The intersection of gender and race in the labor market. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 487–513.

16.

Bumgarner

Crawford

Burns

(2017). Federal law enforcement: A primer (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.

17.

Burgess-Proctor

(2006). Intersections of race, class, gender, and crime. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 27–47.

18.

Byars-Winston

Fouad

Wen

(2015). Race/ethnicity and sex in U.S. occupations, 1970–2010: Implications for research, practice, and policy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 54–70.

19.

Chaiyavej

Morash

(2009). Reasons for policewomen’s assertive and passive reaction to sexual harassment. Police Quarterly, 12(1), 63–85.

20.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 7, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1964).

21.

Civil Rights Act of 1991 § 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq. (1991).

22.

Collins

S. C.

(2004). Sexual harassment and police discipline: Who’s policing the police? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 27(4), 512–538.

23.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.

24.

Crenshaw

(1994). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. In Fineman

M. A.

Mykitiuk

(Eds.), The public nature of private violence (pp. 93–118). Routledge.

25.

Delgado

Stefancic

(2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York University Press.

26.

Department of Justice. (2018). Review of gender equity in the department’s law enforcement components. https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/e1803.pdf

27.

Dodge

Pogrebin

(2001). African–American policewomen: An exploration of professional relationships. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 24(4), 550–562.

28.

Dodge

Valcore

Klinger

D. A.

(2010). Maintaining separate spheres in policing: Women on SWAT teams. Women & Criminal Justice, 20(3), 218–238.

29.

El Kharzazi

R. J.

Siwatu

Brooks

D. R.

(2014). Retaliation: Making it personal. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/retaliation-making-it-personal

30.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2016). Select task force on the study of harassment in the workplace. https://www.eeoc.gov/select-task-force-study-harassment-workplace

31.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2020a). Enforcement and litigation statistics. https://www.eeoc.gov/enforcement/charge-statistics-charges-filed-eeoc-fy-1997-through-fy-2019

32.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2020b). Sex-based discrimination. https://www.eeoc.gov/sex-based-discrimination

33.

Feeney

M. K.

Camarena

(2021). Gender, race, and diversity values among local government leaders. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(1), 105–131.

34.

Felkenes

G. T.

Schroedel

J. R.

(1993). A case study of minority women in policing. Women & Criminal Justice, 4(2), 65–89.

35.

Garcia

(2003). ‘Difference’ in the police department. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19(3), 330–344.

36.

Gaynor

T. S.

(2018). Social construction and the criminalization of identity: State-sanctioned oppression and an unethical administration. Public Integrity, 20(4), 358–369.

37.

Gaynor

T. S.

Blessett

(2014). Inequality at the intersection of the Defense of Marriage Act and the Voting Rights Act: A review of the 2013 Supreme Court decision. Administration Theory & Praxis, 36(2), 261–267.

38.

Haarr

R. N.

Morash

(2004). Police workplace problems, coping strategies and stress: Changes from 1990 to 2003 for women and racial minorities. Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 4(3), 165–185.

39.

Haarr

R. N.

Morash

(2013). The effect of rank on policewomen coping with discrimination and harassment. Police Quarterly, 16(4), 395–419.

40.

Hamidullah

M. F.

Riccucci

N. M.

(2017). Intersectionality and family-friendly policies in the federal government: Perceptions of women of color. Administration & Society, 49(1), 105–120.

41.

Harnois

C. E.

(2005). Different paths to different feminisms? Bridging multiracial feminist theory and quantitative sociological gender research. Gender & Society, 19(6), 809–828.

42.

Harrison

(2012). Women in law enforcement: Subverting sexual harassment with social bonds. Women & Criminal Justice, 22(3), 226–238.

43.

Hassell

K. D.

Brandl

S. G.

(2009). An examination of the workplace experiences of police patrol officers: The role of race, sex, and sexual orientation. Police Quarterly, 12(4), 408–430.

44.

Holvino

(2010). Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender and class in organization studies. Gender, Work & Organization, 17(3), 248–277.

45.

Hsieh

C. W.

Winslow

(2006). Gender representation in the federal workforce: A comparison among groups. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26(3), 276–294.

46.

Hyland

S. S.

Davis

(2019). Local police departments, 2016: Personnel. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd16p.pdf

47.

Lee

Robertson

P. J.

Kim

(2020). Determinants of job satisfaction among U.S. federal employees: An investigation of racial and gender differences. Public Personnel Management, 49(3), 336–366.

48.

Luna

(2016). Truly a women of color organization: Negotiating sameness and difference in pursuit of intersectionality. Gender & Society, 30(5), 769–790.

49.

Maher

T. M.

(2010). Police sexual misconduct: Female police officers' views regarding its nature and extent. Women & Criminal Justice, 20(3), 263–282.

50.

Marbley

A. F.

(2005). African–American women’s feelings on alienation from third-wave feminism: A conversation with my sisters. Western Journal of Black Studies, 29(3), 605–614.

51.

National Institute of Justice (2019). Women in policing: Breaking barriers and blazing a path. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/252963.pdf

52.

Nelson

Piatak

(2019). Intersectionality, leadership, and inclusion: How do racially underrepresented women fare in the federal government? Review of Public Personnel Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19881681

53.

Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), Pub. L. No. 107–174, 116 Stat. 566 (2002).

54.

Posey

B. M.

Kowalski

M. A.

Stohr

M. K.

(2020). Thirty years of scholarship in the Women and Criminal Justice journal: Gender, feminism, and intersectionality. Women & Criminal Justice, 30(1), 5–29.

55.

Rabe-Hemp

C. E.

(2008). Survival in an all boy’s club: Policewomen and their fight for acceptance. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 31(2), 251–270.

56.

Rabe-Hemp

C. E.

Miller

S. L.

(2018). Special issue: Women at work in criminal justice organizations. Feminist Criminology, 13(3), 231–236.

57.

Rasmusson

S. L.

(2004). Third wave feminism: History of a social movement. In Ness

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of American social movements (pp. 429–435). M.E. Sharpe.

58.

Reaves

B. A.

Hart

T. C.

(2001). Federal law enforcement officers, 2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fleo00.pdf

59.

Reese

L. A.

Lindenberg

K. E.

(2005). Gender, age, and sexual harassment. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(4), 325–352.

60.

Rubin

E. V.

Alteri

A. M.

(2019). Discrimination complaints in the U.S. federal government: Reviewing progress under the No FEAR Act. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(4), 511–522.

61.

Sabharwal

(2015). From glass ceiling to glass cliff: Women in senior executive service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), 399–426.

62.

Slonaker

W. M.

Wendt

A. C.

Kemper

M. J.

(2001). Discrimination in the ranks: An empirical study with recommendations. Police Quarterly, 22(1), 63-79.

63.

Somvadee

Morash

(2008). Dynamics of sexual harassment for policewomen working alongside men. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 31(3), 485–498.

64.

Stivers

(2002). Gender images in public administration: Legitimacy and the administrative state. Sage Publications.

65.

Wise

L. R.

Tschirhart

(2000). Examining empirical evidence on diversity effects: How useful is diversity research for public sector managers? Public Administration Review, 60(5), 386–394.

66.

H. H.

(2017). Post-executive order 13583: A re-examination of occupational barriers in federal law Enforcement. Women & Criminal Justice, 27(4), 205–218.

67.

H. H.

(2020). Glass ceiling in federal law enforcement: An exploratory analysis of the factors contributing to women’s career advancement. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(2), 183–201.

68.

H. H.

Lee

(2019). Women and public organization: An examination of mentorship and its effect on reporting workplace discrimination. Review of Public Personnel Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19880578

69.

H. H.

Lee

(2020). Gender and public organization: A quasi-experimental examination of inclusion on experiencing and reporting wrongful behavior in the workplace. Public Personnel Management, 49(1), 3–28.

70.

Zamudio

M. M.

Russell

Rios

F. A.

Bridgeman

J. L.

(2011). Critical race theory matters: Education and ideology. Routledge.

71.

Zinn

M. B.

Dill

B. T.

(1996). Theorizing difference from multiracial feminism. Feminist Studies, 22(2), 321–331.