Week 3

docx

School

Ashford University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

103

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by katelynmole81

1 Brooks Gender Discrimination Malik Brooks PHI 445 Personal and Organizational Ethics Professor Ian McDougall December 2, 2023

2 Brooks In this essay I will discuss gender discrimination and the Ledbetter vs. Goodyear case. An ongoing issue for women has been discrimination in the workplace. Women have been fighting this for years. Discrimination will always be discrimination regardless of the time between incident and court date. This case is about Lily Ledbetter a female production supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber's plant in Gadsden, Alabama. She was employed for twenty years and then retired in 1998 due to her being transferred to a lower job on the production floor involuntarily. Ledbetter filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging sexual discrimination six months before she retired. The jury ruled that Ledbetter suffered illegal play discrimination based on her sex. Ledbetter made up to 40% less than the lowest paid male supervisor. She did the same work as her male employees but got paid much less. Ledbetter was awarded 3.5 million in the form of punitive damages. Those damages were then reduced by the judge to $360,000 in accordance with Title VII's cap on damages (Brake & Grossman, 2007). On appeal, Goodyear argued that Ledbetter’s claim had been time- barred with respect to all pay decisions made prior to September 26, 1997 -- 180 days prior to the date she filed her charge with the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC). You cannot morally justify gender discrimination. Goodyear went against the Utilitarian Theory when deciding to underpay Ledbetter. The Utilitarian Theory believes an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. When determining the morality of any given action, we should list all the good and bad consequences that would result. (Fieser, 2015). In the aspects of this case, Goodyear wanted to please themselves instead of pleasing everyone else. The consequences should have been considered when the company decided to follow the act of discrimination against Ledbetter. In

3 Brooks this sense the act of discrimination brought more unhappiness than happiness. It adversely affected the confidence of the female employees that were working for the company and thus affected the productivity. This reasoning shows that the company cannot be justified for the discriminatory act against Ledbetter. Inequality might increase at the workplace due to gender discrimination. Ledbetter stated she was given poor assessments at work by her supervisors and that was one of the reasons as to why she was still receiving far less pay than her male employees. (Harel & Segal, 2012). The male employees must have been enjoying various benefits that the female employees were unaware of. Which would make it even worse after she became aware of it. This could have caused Ledbetter to have a different perception of her male counterparts. The productivity of the company would be negatively affected due to the creation of a negative attitude towards her male colleagues. According to the utilitarian ethical theory, there would be adverse effects to the company and the company should have prioritized the welfare of Ledbetter and all female employees. The company should have ensured that there would be no discrimination based on gender. Regarding the economic system, the welfare of Ledbetter should have been ensured by the government and make certain that equality was served (Fieser, 2015). There are laws that condemn gender inequality such the Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 which states that employment discrimination based on gender, race, color, religion, and national origin is not allowed (Eeoc.gov, 2009). Another law such as the Equal Pay Act is against gender discrimination it protects workers of different genders performing the same kind of work from sex-based payment discrimination (Eeoc.gov, 2009). There will always be devastating effects on

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 Brooks relationships between employees when there is workplace inequality. In the general aspect this further proves that the company’s act was immoral. Dependents of the employee might be affected when earnings are discriminated. When a few more earnings are denied there were economic implications for not only Ledbetter but also her dependents as well (Adler and Eric, 2000). Ledbetter’s dependents could be caused pain and suffering which goes against the utilitarian ethical theory. The court should have ruled in the favor of Ledbetter because it would have resulted in positive effects on Ledbetter and her dependents, according to the theory. She could have possibly afforded a better life with the extra income and potentially could have made investments that could have benefited other people as well. Regarding the economic system the welfare and social justice of Ledbetter should have been protected by the government. This case just shows the prejudice in how the company acts concerning gender discrimination against the plaintiff. In conclusion, the case concerning Ledbetter vs Goodyear case clarifies how gender discrimination can negatively affect the workplace. The virtue ethics theory would not have offered a satisfactory solution. “Virtue theory is the view that morality is grounded in the virtuous character traits that people acquire” (Fieser, 2015). Ledbetter was not purposefully hurt by Goodyear. Goodyear never intentionally set out to hurt her or her female counterparts on purpose. A mistake was made by Goodyear when they did not take her feelings into consideration. Utilizing the utilitarian aspect Goodyear should have taken her feelings into account first before their feelings. Her happiness should have been placed as priority first before

5 Brooks the companies. Gender discrimination is never justified morally in any circumstance. All consequences should have been taken into consideration by Goodyear.

6 Brooks References Adler, M. and Eric, A. (2000) Implementing Cost Benefit Analysis when Preferences are Distorted. Journal of Legal Studies. Retrieved from http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/88.EAP_.PrefDistort.pdf Bader, H. (2013). Misconceptions about Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Engage, 13(3), 26-30. Retrieved from http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/misconceptionsabout-ledbetter-v-goodyear- tire-rubber-co Brake, D. L., & Grossman, J. L. (2007). Title VII’s protection against pay discrimination: The impact of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Regional Labor Review, 10(1), 28-36. Retrieved from http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/colleges/hclas/cld/cld_rlr_fall07_title7_ grossman.pdf Eeoc.gov. (2009). Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination: Questions And Answers. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html . Fieser, J. (2015). Introduction to business ethics [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Week 3

Related Documents