By integrating the intersectional invisibility hypothesis with the behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes map framework, we examine the extent to which Black women's dual-subordinated identities render them nonprototypical victims of discrimination, relative to White women and Black men, and the corresponding consequences. We predicted that Black women's categorical nonprototypicality would reduce the believability of their discrimination claims, but that their nonprototypical attributes would lead to divergent treatment, depending on the type of discrimination alleged. Our predictions were supported across six experimental studies (Studies 1-4b). Specifically, Black women's gender and racial discrimination claims were believed less compared to those made by White women and Black men, respectively. Moreover, after they alleged discrimination, Black women received less financial remedy versus White women, but more financial remedy versus Black men. Mediation testing revealed that the mechanisms underlying the believability and treatment of Black women were their nonprototypical categorization and attributes. Using discrimination data from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Studies 5a and 5b replicated the effects observed on believability and financial remedy. By focusing on nonprototypicality at both categorical and attribute levels, we thus help to disentangle when Black women's intersectional invisibility may result in either intersectional advantages or disadvantages.