Search

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court's struggle with corporate identity through an in-depth look at the Justices' papers in First Amendment cases over the past forty years. It mentions decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on refusing to design a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the state's antidiscrimination law. It also mentions objections to the enforcement of state antidiscrimination laws.

This article explores the mechanisms by which corporate prestige produces distorted legal outcomes. Drawing on social psychological theories of status, we suggest that prestige influences audience evaluations by shaping expectations, and that its effect will differ depending on whether a firm's blameworthiness has been firmly established. We empirically analyze a unique database of more than 500 employment discrimination suits brought between 1998 and 2008. We find that prestige is associated with a decreased likelihood of being found liable (suggesting a halo effect in assessments of blameworthiness), but with more severe punishments among organizations that are found liable (suggesting a halo tax in administrations of punishment). Our analysis allows us to reconcile two ostensibly contradictory bodies of work on how organizational prestige affects audience evaluations by showing that prestige can be both a benefit and a liability, depending on whether an organization's blameworthiness has been firmly established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]