In logic, what does the term “Zero-Sum Bias” mean, and how does it apply to employment-law trial lawyers handling workplace disputes? Here’s my point of view.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog*, an official governmental website, or a well-recognized organization. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
Zero-Sum Bias: When One Person’s Gain Is Assumed to Be Another Person’s Loss
What Is Zero-Sum Bias?
In psychology, Zero-Sum Bias describes the tendency to view a situation as a competition in which one person’s gain must come at another person’s expense, even when that is not necessarily true.
The concept comes from zero-sum thinking in game theory. In an actual zero-sum situation, the total available benefit is fixed. If one person receives more, someone else must receive less. A simple example is a pie: giving one person a larger slice leaves less pie for everyone else.
But not every situation works that way. Opportunities, workplace improvements, and organizational success do not always require someone else to lose. Zero-Sum Bias occurs when people mistakenly assume that they do.
video Example: Zero Sum Bias
How Zero-Sum Bias Appears in Employment Discrimination
In employment settings, Zero-Sum Bias can influence how employers, employees, and decision-makers perceive workplace opportunities and alleged discrimination.
Consider a hiring decision involving two equally qualified candidates. One candidate is selected, and the other is not. The unsuccessful candidate may assume that the successful candidate received preferential treatment because of a protected characteristic. Conversely, an employer may view efforts to address workplace discrimination as unfair advantages for certain employees, assuming that improving opportunities for one group necessarily disadvantages another.
Neither assumption is necessarily supported by the facts.
For Washington employment-discrimination trial attorneys, the important question is whether the evidence establishes unlawful discrimination—not whether one employee benefited or another employee lost an opportunity.
A successful discrimination claim does not necessarily mean that every employment decision favoring someone outside the plaintiff‘s protected class was discriminatory. Nor does an employer‘s effort to create a fairer workplace necessarily mean that other employees are being treated unfairly.
The focus must remain on the actual employment decision, the circumstances surrounding it, and the evidence of discriminatory motivation.
The Connection to Washington Law
Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter 49.60* RCW, prohibits specified discriminatory employment practices. In disparate-treatment cases, a plaintiff must establish that discrimination was a substantial factor motivating the employer‘s adverse employment decision.
In Scrivener v. Clark College*, 181 Wn.2d 439 (2014), the Washington Supreme Court* explained that discrimination need not be the employer‘s only motivating factor. An employer may have legitimate reasons for an employment decision while also being motivated, in substantial part, by unlawful discrimination.
This principle is important when evaluating Zero-Sum Bias. The existence of a legitimate business reason does not automatically eliminate the possibility of discrimination. Likewise, the fact that another employee benefited from an employment decision does not, by itself, establish that the plaintiff was discriminated against.
Attorneys must examine the evidence rather than assume that one employee’s success necessarily explains another employee’s adverse treatment.
Turning the Bias into an Advocacy Tool
Recognizing Zero-Sum Bias can help trial attorneys challenge assumptions that distort the evaluation of employment decisions.
Plaintiff’s attorneys should focus on evidence of discriminatory treatment rather than simply pointing out that another employee received a benefit. Defense attorneys should likewise avoid assuming that a legitimate employment decision cannot involve discriminatory motivation.
Both sides should ask whether they are evaluating the actual circumstances or simply viewing the situation as a competition in which one employee’s gain must explain another employee’s loss.
The distinction can help attorneys develop more persuasive arguments and encourage jurors to evaluate the evidence without relying on unsupported assumptions.
Closing Argument
Zero-Sum Bias reminds us that workplace opportunities are not always a contest in which one person’s success requires another person’s failure. Although some employment decisions necessarily involve limited positions or resources, that does not mean every difference in treatment reflects discrimination or that efforts to promote fairness disadvantage everyone else.
For Washington employment-discrimination trial attorneys, the challenge is to separate assumptions about competition from evidence of unlawful conduct. The question is not simply who benefited or who lost an opportunity. It is whether an employee’s protected characteristic was a substantial factor in the employer’s decision.
Fairness is not necessarily a limited resource. And in employment-discrimination litigation, one person’s success is not, by itself, evidence of another person’s unlawful treatment.
Read Our Related Articles
» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
» Law & Logic: Affirming the Consequent
» Law & Logic: Appeal to Emotion
» Law & Logic: Argument from Fallacy or Bad Reasons Fallacy
» Law & Logic: Argument from Incredulity
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Antiquitam (Appeal to Tradition)
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Nauseam
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Populum
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Vercundiam (Appeal to Authority)
» Law & Logic: Complex Question (False Dilemma)
» Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy
» Law & Logic: Conjunction Fallacy
» Law & Logic: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)
» Law & Logic: Fallacy of the Inverse (Denying the Antecedent)
» Law & Logic: Halo Effect and Gambler’s Fallacy
» Law & Logic: Hasty Generalization
» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)
» Law & Logic: Ipse Dixit Fallacy or “It Simply Is”
» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)
» Law & Logic: Proper Reasoning (Valid Logic)
» Law & Logic: Single Cause Fallacy (Complex Cause)
» Law & Logic: The False Compromise
» Law & Logic: The Straw Man Fallacy
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
–gw