The role of attributions in judgments of sex discrimination was examined in 2 laboratory experiments. In Study 1, participants read 1 of 12 brief scenarios in which limited information about the strength of evidence against a fictitious corporation and occupational gender stereotype were manipulated. Results suggested that attributions mediated the relationships between participants' gender, strength of evidence, and discrimination judgments. In Study 2, participants were provided with 1 of 3 detailed, typewritten summaries of evidence presented in a sex discrimination trial. Results indicated that jurors' gender was again significantly related to attributions and to sex discrimination judgments even in the face of substantial objective information related to the case. The variance in observers' judgments associated with gender, however, appeared to be greatest when information about the organization's guilt or innocence was equivocal.