Why forcing women back to the office will cost millions

In an era where workplace equity is under increasing scrutiny, forcing employees back into environments where discrimination thrives is a risk no organisation can afford to take, writes Dr Gleb Tsipursky.

As companies and government agencies push forward with return-to-office (RTO) mandates, they risk exacerbating a workplace problem that many have failed to address adequately: gender discrimination. New research from the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management highlights how in-person work environments expose women to significantly higher levels of workplace bias and mistreatment compared to remote work. These findings present a serious challenge for leaders who insist on full-time office work without considering the consequences – both ethical and financial. Beyond harming employee morale and retention, a failure to address gender discrimination in the workplace increases the risk of costly lawsuits and reputational damage. Ultimately, companies like Amazon and government agencies enforcing RTO policies will not only jeopardise workplace equity but also impose significant financial burdens on shareholders and taxpayers.

Forcing women back to the office and the gender discrimination gap

A study conducted by professors Laura Doering and András Tilcsik at the Rotman School of Management surveyed over 1,000 professional women in hybrid roles. Their research found that gender discrimination was nearly twice as common in the office as it was when working remotely. When women worked onsite, 31 per cent reported experiencing discrimination, compared to just 17 per cent when working remotely.

The disparities were even more pronounced for women in male-dominated workplaces. Among those who worked primarily or exclusively with men, the likelihood of facing gender discrimination in the office skyrocketed to 58 per cent, compared to only 26 per cent when working remotely. These findings suggest that physical office environments exacerbate existing biases and create conditions where discrimination flourishes.

Younger women, particularly those under 30, were also more vulnerable to workplace mistreatment. The study found that 31 per cent of younger women reported experiencing discrimination onsite, compared to just 14 per cent when working remotely. This highlights how RTO policies disproportionately impact early-career women, potentially discouraging them from remaining in their roles or even in their industries.

The types of discrimination women faced were not limited to isolated incidents. The study assessed 11 different forms of gender-based mistreatment, including inappropriate attention, having ideas ignored or stolen, being assigned non-promotable tasks, exclusion from workplace discussions, and being addressed with sexist language in meetings. These everyday slights contribute to a toxic work culture that erodes job satisfaction and increases burnout.

A case in point: Tata Consultancy Services. The 600,000-employee Indian multinational firm mandated a full-time return to the office in 2023, and within a year, reported cases of sexual harassment more than doubled. This aligns with the findings from the Rotman study, suggesting that office environments often lack the safeguards necessary to prevent discrimination. If companies and agencies enforcing RTO mandates fail to address these risks, they could find themselves facing a wave of legal challenges similar to Tata’s situation.

The cost of discrimination: Lawsuits and financial liabilities

Forcing employees into an environment where they are more likely to face gender discrimination is not just an ethical issue – it is also a legal and financial risk. Companies and government agencies that ignore the warnings from research like the Rotman study could face an increase in discrimination lawsuits, which come with steep financial penalties.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) consistently reports high settlement costs for gender discrimination cases. In 2024 alone, the EEOC secured US$700 million in monetary benefits for victims of discrimination, including sex-based workplace discrimination. These cases often result in not only financial settlements but also costly legal fees, reputational damage, and increased employee turnover, which further drives up operational expenses. More broadly, companies are facing record average damages from lawsuits recently, with damages growing faster than inflation.

The financial burden of full-time RTO policies does not fall solely on company executives or agency leaders – it ultimately affects shareholders and taxpayers. Publicly traded companies like Amazon, which has faced backlash for its aggressive RTO push, risk seeing their stock prices decline due to legal liabilities and employee attrition. Shareholders will bear the cost of lost productivity, settlement payouts, and damaged brand reputation.

For the federal government and state government agencies mandating full-time office work, taxpayers are the ones who will foot the bill for discrimination lawsuits, increased turnover, and reduced workforce efficiency. Federal agencies already struggle with gender discrimination cases, and an RTO policy that exacerbates these problems could lead to more claims, higher legal fees, and costly settlements funded by taxpayer dollars.

Beyond legal costs, the productivity losses associated with workplace discrimination are substantial. Research from the Centre for American Progress estimates that replacing a single employee costs organisations approximately 20 per cent of that worker’s annual salary. When discrimination and burnout push women out of their jobs, companies and agencies must spend additional resources on recruitment, onboarding, and training – all of which could have been avoided by fostering a more inclusive and flexible work environment.

Why leadership must rethink RTO mandates

Despite these risks, some executives continue to frame RTO as a productivity-boosting initiative. However, research consistently shows that flexible work options enhance employee wellbeing and reduce workplace bias. The Rotman study’s findings reinforce that remote work serves as a protective shield against gender discrimination, allowing women to focus on their contributions rather than navigating a hostile work environment.

This does not mean that remote work should be used as an excuse to avoid addressing discrimination. Instead, it underscores the need for companies and agencies to tackle the root causes of workplace bias before enforcing in-office mandates. Implementing stronger anti-discrimination policies, holding leadership accountable, and fostering an inclusive culture are critical steps.

For organisations that choose to ignore these warnings, the consequences will be severe. Increased legal liabilities, talent attrition, and reputational damage are all on the horizon for those who fail to create safe and equitable workplaces. The costs of full-time RTO mandates – both financial and cultural – will ultimately be borne by shareholders and taxpayers, making it imperative for leaders to rethink their approach.

In an era where workplace equity is under increasing scrutiny, forcing employees back into environments where discrimination thrives is a risk no organisation can afford to take.

Gleb Tsipursky, PhD, is the chief executive of hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts.