This study tests a model relating perceived legitimacy of a promotion committee's decision to the deservingness and entitlement of a male or female candidate for promotion and to resentment about the decision. University students responded to scenarios in which deservingness was manipulated by information about the quality of the candidate's performance; entitlement was manipulated by information about an affirmative-action policy. Results showed strong positive effects of perceived deservingness on perceived legitimacy, which were partially mediated by resentment. Perceived entitlement was also a positive predictor of perceived legitimacy. Gender bias occurred, especially in regard to resentment and when the male candidate was promoted. The study extends deservingness theory to a new area and provides evidence for the distinction between deservingness and entitlement.