Parenthood discrimination in the labour market: What we know
Even in 2024, women climb the career ladder more slowly than men and, sooner or later, hit the glass ceiling. The cause is often placed with employers: they discriminate against women because of prejudices about their (possible) role as a mother. But is that true? We brought together all the international experimental research on this in a scientific literature review, and found that women indeed more often miss out on a job or promotion because they are — or could become — a mother. The role of mother thus clashes with the image of the ideal worker. And men? On the labour market, they actually benefit from their fatherhood.
Web of Science, the platform that bundles the most important scientific journals, contains many experimental studies examining how employers worldwide react to (possible) parents. These studies range from field experiments (in which fictitious CVs are sent to real vacancies) to lab experiments (in which fictitious profiles are presented to real recruiters in a fictitious hiring process). They typically compare similar applicants who differ only in parental status: whether or not they have children, and/or whether or not they are pregnant, and/or whether or not they may have children in the future.
A penalty for motherhood, pregnancy, and fertility
The scientific literature is clear: mothers experience a so-called “motherhood penalty” in the workplace. In the majority of experiments conducted worldwide, mothers were systematically disadvantaged compared with their childless female colleagues. They had lower hiring chances, promotion chances, and/or wages. The review also shows that one explanation for this is employers’ search for “the ideal worker”. That ideal worker works full-time and without interruptions. Because of their caregiving responsibilities, mothers do not fit that profile, which disadvantages them on the labour market.
The extent to which the image of the ideal worker drives the motherhood penalty has been examined in several studies. In one study, mothers were profiled as either the caregiver or the breadwinner of the family. Recruiters received that information via fictitious notes, supposedly written by a previous fictitious manager, indicating among other things whether the candidate was the family’s primary caregiver or breadwinner. Mothers presented as caregivers were given less access to leadership training. That disadvantage disappeared, however, when they were presented as breadwinners, which better fits the image of the ideal worker.
In addition, pregnancy also turns out to create considerable obstacles for women on the labour market. Pregnancy was simulated with a pregnancy prosthesis, both physically and in photos or videos. Applicants who were visibly pregnant experienced negative labour-market outcomes in most experiments, such as lower hiring chances and/or lower wages — a “pregnancy penalty”.
Finally, the prospect of future parenthood also forms a barrier for women at the start of their careers. In every experiment that examined this, a “fertility penalty” was found: childless women in their fertile years were judged less favourably because of the possibility of children in the future.
Fatherhood often pays off on the labour market
Fathers do not experience these negative effects of parenthood on the labour market at all. What’s more, in a third of the experiments, fatherhood even turned out to provide a “bonus”, with fathers being hired more often, promoted faster, and/or receiving higher wages than childless men.
Again, the image of the “ideal worker” offers an explanation: traditional role patterns mean that fathers are, by nature, closer to that image, because they more often work full-time and interrupt their careers less.
Lessons for policymakers
The unfavourable treatment of mothers and women of fertile age shows that employers worldwide still make decisions based on stereotypes. This is worrying, and we therefore call on policymakers and employers to break these prejudices. We propose three concrete measures.
A more uniform approach to hiring processes. A uniform approach can help counter (unconscious) discrimination by employers. Think of structured interviews and standardised CVs that ensure more objective information about applicants. In the Netherlands, a bill to encourage such methods was discussed this year, but it was ultimately voted down. Yet such an approach is essential to make the labour market more transparent and fairer. Employers need not sit idle: they can already get to work on this themselves.
More affordable and flexible childcare. To reduce the impact of caregiving responsibilities for mothers, policymakers should invest in more affordable and flexible childcare — think of broader opening hours and more subsidised places. Improving the working conditions and wages of childcare staff could also address the current shortages, giving mothers more flexibility to continue their careers.
A more equal division of parental leave between mothers and fathers. This can contribute to a fairer picture of work and care tasks. By encouraging fathers to take a larger share of the leave, the burdens of care and any career interruptions can be divided more fairly, which ultimately benefits mothers’ career prospects. The reforms previously made in the Scandinavian countries can serve as a guide.
This post also appeared in Dutch via UGent@Work. It is based on joint work with Stijn Baert, Luc Van Ootegem, Elsy Verhofstadt, and Louis Lippens. The full paper is available here. This page was last updated on 15 June 2026.