This chapter analyzes the ways some organzational theories reflect the viewpoints of the relatively prosperous, while ignoring the perspectives of the less advantaged. For example, research on institutional theory, internal labor markets, and occupational gender segregation often assume that common organizational arrangements are perceived as legitimate (right and just), even by these legitimacy assumptions may sometimes be invalid. For example, when inequality between groups is large, disadvantaged people may fee that their entire group is unjustly treated. If sufficient mobilization resources are available, they may engage in collective action to change the system. If collective action is not feasible, they may continue to feel unjustly treated and show those feelings via individual reactions, such as drug dependency, exit, mental illness, etc. Distributive justice research suggests that the legitimacy assumptions that lie at the heart of many organizational theories should be empirically tested, with a focus on the viewpoints of members of disadvantaged groups. Under some conditions, they expect their rewards to be low an find this dissatisfying and unjust.