Professor Bryan Caplan makes some impressive observations in his 2020 essay The Anti-Jerk Law. Caplan uses the hypothetical example of an Anti-Jerk law to emphasize the fallacies of anti-discrimination laws. At their core, both the fabricated example of the Anti-Jerk law and current discrimination laws suffer from numerous flaws. Instances of discrimination are not clear-cut, much like how your boss is a jerk is subject to interpretation. But if juries are predisposed to sympathize with instances of discrimination or the censure of a mean boss, this may “… lower the de facto burden of proof…” in ligation cases. More importantly, firms might be less apt to hire individuals that can make discrimination claims. Resulting in more indirect discrimination, creating a cobra effect. Laws and policies; designed to reduce discrimination, increasing discrimination.
Effectively, anti-discrimination laws are prone to create Prisoner’s Dilemmas. Why? Employers and Employees(ethnic minorities, religious minorities, transgender people, homosexuals, women) are predisposed to work against one another. Firms are ligation adverse and seek to avoid lawsuits costs and bad publicity. On the other hand, minority employees (emboldened by anti-discrimination regulations) have laws incentivizing them to pursue maximum damages for any perceived incident of discrimination. It is evident that both incentive structures are at odds and will cause both parties to choose to defect (using the vernacular of game theory) rather than cooperate.
The Calculations:
The above scenario is a zero-sum game; due to neither party wanting to compromise and the perception of winner-take-all dynamics. To numerically determine that this scenario is a Prisoner’s Dilemma, we must validate that the situation satisfies the two conditions expressed by Nordstrom; 1.) T>R>P>S and 2.) (T+S)/2<R.
Defining The Variable:
· Reward For Mutual Cooperation: R =.5
The value of .5 has been assigned for the gains of cooperation because the values expressed are predicated on a significant potential stance of discrimination ligation. The firm could take a chance on a risky employee and an employee could tolerate mild forms of discrimination (insensitive jokes, run-of-the-mill micro-aggressions) and not sue. Functioning as an archetypal compromise, neither party is pleased with the arrangement but still better than non-cooperation.
· Punishment for Defection: P =0
There is little to no proper punishment for defection. For the hiring company, it is difficult/ nearly impossible to prove that they choose the 20-something, recent college graduate, male over a riskier job application (from an anti-discrimination standpoint). There is virtually no actual punishment despite the formal parameters of discrimination laws. For the employee, since the social norms are aligned with anti-discrimination legislation, the social costs for suing are low (but there might be monetary costs associated with legal action which are difficult to quantify.
· Temptation to Defection: T=1
The firm has a lot to lose by hiring an employee with a high probability of suing them; the employee has a lot to gain in situations of discrimination.
· Sucker’s Payoff: S=-1
Both parties can lose a lot if the other does not compromise.
Condition 1:
· T>R>P>S
· 1> .5> 0 > -1
Condition 2:
· (T+S)/2<R
· (1+-1)/2 <.5
· (0)/2 <.5
· 0 < .5
Prima facie, it does seem as if numerically and qualitatively that anti-discrimination laws are inclined to create Prisoner’s Dilemmas.
Inverted logic 