What the data says: The state of hiring bias in 2025

In 2003 economists Marianne Betrand and Sendhil Mullainathan shocked the HR community with the publication of Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination, which measured how identical resumes performed based on the name attached. The most eye-grabbing statistic was that applicants with white sounding names were 50% more likely to land a callback than applicants with black sounding names. This groundbreaking study provided undeniable proof of something people in minority groups knew all too well: bias plays a major factor in the hiring process. Since then there has been a collective effort to reduce or outright eliminate hiring bias. While major strides have been made in the last two decades, it shouldn’t come as a shock that hiring bias is still something jobseekers must contend with in 2025.Here’s a look at the state of hiring bias in 2025: where things have improved, where they've stayed the same, and where they've gotten worse.

In 2003 economists Marianne Betrand and Sendhil Mullainathan shocked the HR community with the publication of Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination, which measured how identical resumes performed based on the name attached. The most eye-grabbing statistic was that applicants with white sounding names were 50% more likely to land a callback than applicants with black sounding names. This groundbreaking study provided undeniable proof of something people in minority groups knew all too well: bias plays a major factor in the hiring process.

Since then there has been a collective effort to reduce or outright eliminate hiring bias. While major strides have been made in the last two decades, it shouldn’t come as a shock that hiring bias is still something jobseekers must contend with in 2025. Here’s a look at the state of hiring bias in 2025: where things have improved, where they've stayed the same, and where they've gotten worse.

Racial bias has seen major reductions, but not everywhere

Building on the methodology of the Betrand & Mullainathan study, researchers at the University of Chicago and the University of California, Berkley submitted 83,000 fictitious job applications in order to produce A Discrimination Report Card, which graded 97 Fortune 500 companies on their rates of race and gender discrimination in entry level jobs. They discovered that applicants with black sounding names were on average 9% less likely to receive a callback than applicants with a white sounding name. But this 41% drop from 2003 isn’t the entire story, as researchers found that the majority of companies showed little racial hiring bias (3% at the lowest), while the worst offenders showed severe hiring bias (24% at the highest) that raised the average. Another wrinkle is that these numbers were largely consistent within industries:

While this study only measured entry-level positions, another 2024 study from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill examined hiring bias as someone traveled up the corporate ladder of software and engineering firms. This study found that racial hiring bias decreased as job level increased, with it being nearly nonexistent a few steps above entry level. The authors believe this reduction in bias may be due to a phenomenon known as “diversity commodification.” From author Kate Weisshaar: “There are so few women and racial minorities in software engineering, but especially as job level increases. This means that those who do apply are valuable to employers for their contribution to diversity—and face less discrimination as a result. Additionally, decision-makers are eager to hire ‘diverse’ applicants for more visible, senior-level positions, because it benefits the company’s image.”

Gender bias still disproportionately impacts women

All three of the studies cited also measure how having a traditionally feminine sounding name might affect the likelihood of getting a job interview. Taken alone, these studies paint a very pleasant picture: the 2003 study found gender bias to be remarkably infrequent, while the discrimination report card found that bias towards one gender in four organisations was offset 1:1 by bias towards the other gender in an equal number of organisations. The UNC study also found that as roles became more senior, gender bias flipped in favor of white women, while staying net neutral for women of color. But labor statistics don’t bear this out: despite accounting for 47% of the American workforce, the percentage in director level and higher positions held by women has failed to get above 40%.

So why the mismatch? One reason could be what the studies are measuring: callbacks for interviews. Other studies on gender bias in hiring indicate that gender discrimination tends to start at the interview stage and only gets worse from there. According to a survey by The Muse, “42% of women said they have encountered gender-biased or inappropriate questions during a job interview and 41% said they have felt discriminated against during a job interview.” These numbers were even worse for women from the American Southeast, where 74% of women reported gender biased questions and 63% reported feeling discriminated against in the interview.

Age bias has become more complicated

Age discrimination has also been a problem in hiring for quite some time, with recent studies showing that older candidates are between 11% and 50% more likely to be passed over in favor of a younger candidate. Age bias has shown no improvement. A recent survey by Resume Builder found 42% of hiring managers consider age when evaluating resumes, and 33% have concerns about hiring older applicants. In fact, there’s evidence to suggest it has only gotten worse and has now expanded to include Gen Z. The same survey showed that 36% of hiring managers have concerns about hiring people between the ages of 18 and 27. Of those hiring managers with concerns about Gen Z, nearly half believe it is in the best interest of their company to not hire Gen Z workers.

Disability & Neurodiversity bias: one step forward, two steps back

In 2023 the unemployment rate for people with disabilities reached an all time low of 7.2%, and year over year that number only increased 0.2%. This milestone was achievable in large part as many companies moved to hybrid and remote work policies in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately the resurgence of return to office mandates and staffing changes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has raised concerns in the disabled community about long term career prospects for people with disabilities. It’s also raised concerns about increased bias in the hiring process.

A survey by Indeed found that “37% of respondents said they struggle to identify whether jobs will be accommodating to their disability, and 31% fear they won’t be considered for roles based on their disability. Finally, 25% said that discrimination poses a challenge in the interview and hiring process.” Among the neurodiverse the numbers get much more bleak. Unfortunately US based research on hiring bias and neurodiversity is hard to come by. But studies from the UK, whose Equality Act provides protections similar to the US ADA, provide some insight into the challenges faced by neurodiverse job seekers.

Pearn Kandola’s Neurodiversity At Work report surveys over 600 neurodivergent people employed in the UK. Of those surveyed 48% reported feeling that the recruitment process was unfairly biased against the neurodiverse. It’s not hard to see why: the interview process is filled with scenarios that can be difficult for people on the autism spectrum or have ADHD and dyslexia. This poses neurodiverse job seekers with a difficult decision of whether or not to disclose their neurodiversity. Not disclosing runs the risk of being judged unfairly due to cognitive differences outside their control, and disclosing runs the risk of outright discrimination or implicit discrimination in the form of misconceptions about neurodiversity.

Looking forward

The fight against hiring bias has come a long way since 2003, but the data shows there’s still plenty of work to be done. While racial bias in entry-level hiring has decreased, disparities remain, especially in certain industries. Gender bias may be less visible at the resume stage, but it persists throughout the hiring process, limiting career progression for women. Age discrimination now affects both older workers and Gen Z. While remote work opened doors for disabled and neurodiverse candidates, new barriers are quickly replacing old ones. The reality is that bias in hiring isn’t a single problem with a single solution, it’s a complex, evolving issue that requires continuous effort from employers, policymakers, and job seekers alike. The challenge for 2025 and beyond is not just to acknowledge these biases but to actively use tools that can help reduce hiring bias.