 |
| Texas Leads U.S. For Number of Discrimination Cases Filed |
At first glance, the top three states in terms of total discrimination charges have remained unchanged since 2009 with Texas leading all states followed by Florida and then California. Illinois and Georgia round out the top five, taking turns at the fourth and fifth rankings over the three-year period. Given the relatively large employed populations in these states, it is not surprising that they rank among the top states with regard to total charges. Conversely, the bottom five states when ranked according to total charges vary slightly from year to year among the following eight states, all of which have relatively small employed populations: Montana, Maine, Vermont, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. (Link to: EEOC Charge Statistics – Total Charges and Rankings – By State.pdf)
When looking at total charges as a percentage of each state’s employed population, the top rankings change considerably. In 2011, Texas drops to number 16, Florida drops to number 12, and California drops to number 29. In their place, Alabama rises to the rank of number 1 in 2009, 2010 and 2011, with total discrimination charges equal to 0.173% of its employed population in 2011. Mississippi is a close second in all three years, with total charges equal to 0.171% of its employed population in 2011. New Mexico moves up from number 6 in 2009 and number 5 in 2010 to number 3 in 2011. After being ranked number 3 in both 2009 and 2010, Georgia falls to number 4 in 2011. Similarly, after being ranked number 4 in both 2009 and 2010, Arkansas falls to number 5 in 2011. The bottom rankings, in contrast, do not change much when total discrimination charges are expressed relative to a state’s employed population as opposed to being expressed in absolute terms. More specifically, the bottom five states vary slightly from year to year among the following six states, which, except for Nebraska, are also listed in the bottom rankings above when examining total discrimination charges in absolute terms: Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Vermont, and North Dakota. (Link to: EEOC Charge Statistics – Total Charges Relative to Employed Population – By State.pdf)
 |
| The Congresswoman has it figured Out |
The patterns with regard to race discrimination charges are similar to the ones above and again depend on whether the charges are examined in absolute terms or relative to each state’s minority population. In absolute terms, Texas leads all states in total race charges for each year from 2009 to 2011. Florida, California, and Georgia vie alternately for the second through fourth ranks over the three years. Illinois claims the fifth spot in 2009 and 2011, but is displaced by North Carolina at this ranking in 2010. The story is different when total race charges are expressed as a percentage of each state’s minority population (for which data were available only in 2009 and 2010). Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Indiana claim the first through fourth rankings, respectively, in 2010 and previously in 2009, but in a slightly different order. Missouri takes the fifth spot in 2010, which was previously held by Colorado in 2009. (Links to: EEOC Charge Statistics – Race Charges and Rankings – By State.pdf and EEOC Charge Statistics – Race Charges Relative to Minority Population – By State.pdf)
In sum, states with the largest populations, such as Texas, Florida and California, tend to have the largest absolute number of discrimination charges filed with the EEOC, both in total and with regard to race. On the other hand, when such charges are expressed as a percentage of each state’s employed or minority population, Southern states, such as Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee, tend to rise to the top of the rankings, with New Mexico and Indiana being notable exceptions. Georgia is the lone state that appears among the top five in both total charges and total charges as a percentage of the employed population. It also ranks among the top five in total race charges; however, it drops out of the top five to number 11 in 2009 and number 10 in 2010 when these charges are expressed as a percentage of its minority population.
Discrimination Charge Statistics by State – Relatively Speaking
Author: Murray Simpson, Ph.D., Manager, Consulting Services, Peoplefluent Research Institute
Contributors: Lisa Harpe, Ph.D., Senior Consultant, Peoplefluent Research Institute
David Biggs, Senior Applications Programmer, Peoplefluent Research Institute
