Documenting Discrimination: A Study of Recruitment Cases Brought to the Norwegian Gender Equality Ombud

Abstract

This article investigates appointment cases brought to the Gender Equality Ombud over a ten‐year period (1985–94). The study presented here aims to explore gender discrimination in recruitment and why it is so hard to document. An advantage of studying appointment cases brought to the Ombud is that the three parties — the plaintiff, the hiring authority and the Ombud — are all engaged in presenting arguments directly concerning gender discrimination. The two key questions are: how do hiring authorities argue to counter assertions of discrimination? And on what grounds are arguments accepted/not accepted by the Ombud? The cases investigated are divided into three categories: cases from male‐dominated organizations, woman‐dominated organizations and gender‐balanced organizations. How the gender of the candidates has influenced the hiring process can only be read indirectly from most cases; hiring authorities usually argue that it is the concern for personal suitability that has been the decisive factor. In the analysis of the cases three main types of justifications of hiring preferences are identified: ‘continuity’, ‘renewal’ and ‘the woman is unfit’. The decision situation of the Ombud is uncertain in most cases. In many cases the juridical expertise of hiring authorities seems to be decisive. The demarcation line is unclear concerning which arguments should be accepted as impartial and which should be rejected because of vagueness or subjectivity.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.