Although procedural justice in the workplace has been a topic of increasing interest (e.g., Aram & Salipante, 1981; Ewing 1977a, 1977b; Folger & Greenberg, 1985; Gordon & Miller, 1984; Smith, 1983; Walker, Lind, & Thibaut, 1979), it has received surprisingly little empirical attention. Existing research on workplace justice, however, does lead to a disquieting conclusion: There may be systematic differences in workplace justice outcomes that are associated with the genders of involved employees (e.g., Dobbins, Pence, Orban, & Sgro, 1983; Larwood, Rand, & Hovanessian, 1979; Rosen & Jerdee, 1975). Systematic differences based on gender in outcomes of disputes or disciplinary actions between employees and organizations may have critical consequences. Larwood and colleagues, for example, commented on this aspect of disciplinary action: Presumably, any evaluation which results in either sex being judged more harshly than the other will place that group at a disadvantage with respect to future personnel decisions. Ideally, organizations will judge dispute or disciplinary cases on their merit and the gender of employees involved will not affect outcomes. There is some evidence, however, that this is apparently not the case. Rosen and Jerdee conducted a simulation designed to determine the influence of appellants' gender and the type of appeal on managers' evaluations of grievances. They concluded that male employees may have considerably more flexibility than female employees as to choice of appeal for "restitution of organizational inequities" (1975:445). In another experiment (Larwood et al., 1979), subjects taking the role of personnel managers examined vignettes in which hypothetical employees had made rather substantial errors in judgment and indicated their preference for one of four disciplinary outcomes--discharge, transfer, suspension, or demotion. It was reported that managers would more readily take disciplinary action against women than men. Rosen and Jerdee concluded that "career women may have little margin for error, unlike men in traditional male employment roles" (1979:540). A more recent laboratory investigation addressing gender-related differences in the use of corrective action (Dobbins et al., 1983) reported that leaders responded more intensely, using stronger control procedures, towards women subordinates than towards men. All three simulations suggested that women may receive less favorable treatment than men in the adjudication of disputes and disciplinary proceedings. This is a potentially severe indictment. Before concluding that organizational members who are women are subject to such bias in workplace justice proceedings, three issues should be considered: (1) the scarcity of research addressing workplace justice procedures and outcomes; (2) the lack of field investigations of these procedures and outcomes; and (3) the dynamics of gender composition in workplace justice proceedings. As to the first issue, a conventional caution applies that little can be responsibly concluded about workplace justice outcomes given the modest amount of examination that has occurred. As for the second issue, the lack of field assessments of workplace justice processes and outcomes, we note that prior studies in the area (Dobbins et al., 1983; Larwood et al., 1979; Rosen & Jerdee, 1975) have been simulations designed for laboratory protocol. This a potential concern inasmuch as a tendency for results obtained under laboratory protocol to be inconsistent with those in field settings has been noted (Osborn & Vicars, 1976; Wendelken & Inn, 1981). In fact, two recent field assessments of workplace justice may be interpreted as some evidence of this inconsistency.… [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]