: Personal and Organizational Ethics

Gender Discrimination NAME PHI445: Personal and Organizational Ethics Professor Ronald Cade DATE Gender Discrimination Over the years in American history there have been years and tears of gender discrimination, and when women joined the workforce, these practices continued to carry on. In this country, there has always been a division of the genders throughout history. Women have sought to be looked at and treated as equals in the very society that they live and thrive in. In the case of Lilly Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., this issue was very prominent and was a matter of unethical business behavior. While companies such as Goodyear are in a capitalist economy and private business, allowing companies to treat their employees in such a manner is unethical because if one is required to do the same work, then one should get paid the same. It also keeps the wage gap been men and women distant while giving companies the idea that they are allowed to treat its employees unfairly while not having to abide by the law, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Goodyear is not morally justifiable when discriminating an employee’s wage solely based on their gender. Lilly Ledbetter was hired in 1979 as a supervisor in the Goodyear tire plant in Alabama, and over the years was denied merit raises due to her performance evaluations which resulted in her pension to be less than her male co-workers in the end. She noticed little things throughout her career but never realized how these little things really made an impact on her life. Working in a male dominated field, Lilly took many things with a grain of salt because she did not have all the evidence necessary to build a case prior to her retirement. After retirement, Lilly took all the information she gained, some of which was anonymous; she decided to take her case to court for gender pay discrimination in the workforce at the end of her career with Goodyear. Lilly took her case to civil court where she won was awarded her back pay as well as punitive damages for the time she spent working there. Goodyear then appealed the decision and went to the Supreme Court and they decided her settlement was not valid and reversed the decision because it was outside of a 180-day statute of limitation (Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 500 U.S. 618, 2006, para. 8). Since 1877, the rights of women have not always been given because they were not always regarded at as equal, nor permitted to vote, while fighting to make their place in society and the workforce. As researched, “Gender equality can be achieved when men and women can reap the benefits from the same rights and opportunities throughout their different areas of life (Unknown, 2000, para. 3).” Lilly was offered a position as a supervisor and performed this duty for many years. She was consistently held accountable for her job and those that were working under her in the same manner as her male counterparts. Unfortunately, men still are looked upon as being superior, stronger, and more competent just as those who worked alongside of Mrs. Ledbetter. Lilly made unlimited strides being one of the only women at this Goodyear plant, she has had to battle to earn he place while not wanting to cause a ruckus by declaring discrimination. Women like Lilly have fought for the government, society, men, and even went to the streets and had their ideas and voices be heard in public forums for equality. Yet there are great progresses that are taking place in order for the women to have that equal playing field and be respected in the same regards as men. While women are capable of doing anything, females continue viewed as weaker by being treated unequally, working for lower wages, and endure many forms of harassment that keep them one step behind. This was very obvious when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Goodyear by ultimately denying Ledbetter’s claim because it was out of the 180-day statute of limitation. My ethical standpoint concerning the Ledbetter v. Goodyear case is Utilitarianism, which simply “allows us and our circumstances to look and realize everything should always perform the action that produces the best consequences (Mulgan, 2015, para. 11).” Back in American history women did not even have the right to vote, much less have the equal pay and rights in the workforce. In the early 1900’s women only made up close to 15% of the entire work force (Barnes, 2015, para. 5), while today they make up 57% according to the United States Department of Labor (Bureau, 2015, para. 7). With this large increase it is disturbing that women are still fighting for the same rights and pay of their male co-workers. This type of injustice affects everyone in some way or another. Through reform movements and continuous progress women have always continued to strive forward. While things are progressing, women continue to have struggles with the ability to be treated as an equal. Through the rule of consequentialism, it states that: “An action is morally right if and only if it does not violate the set of rules of behavior whose general acceptance in the community would have the best consequences—that is, at least as good as any rival set of rules or no rules at all (Haines, n.d., para. 4).” Can gender inequality really create the greatest amount of happiness for everyone? No it cannot, simply because the greater good for all is to have a level playing field when it comes to the genders. While women are required to do the exact same job as men these days, “Women are only making 78% of what men earn working full-time (Unknown, Equal Pay, 2015, para. 9).” So, why is this practice continuing when it is obviously unethical behavior? The consequences of not allowing Lilly earning the same amount as her male co-workers, kept her from accumulating the money and ended with her retirement being much smaller than what it would have been if she were paid the same. This then allows Goodyear to not have to spend as much money in the long run paying retirement benefits. Understanding Goodyear is a private company and is not in a socialist economy it can pay an employee what it wants as long it is not breaking any of the laws set to protect workers. The ethical theory of utilitarianism disagrees with gender discrimination both because it is “wrong in itself” and “one of the chief hindrances to human development (Wisborg, 2014, para. 15).” The lasting effect of behavior such as this can cause issues in the future when our children enter into society looking to share roles but not being compensated for their skills. The economic setting that has taken place here in America is Capitalism because one point of the capitalist theory is it is categorized as “being part of personal self-interest, not community interest (Fieser, 2015, para. 6).” Regardless of her qualifications and ability to do her job effectively the motive for the company was not for the interest of its employee Lilly Ledbetter, but for their own personal interest and gain. For the longest time Goodyear had indirect evidence of discrimination when it came to Lilly. This is when the behavior of a company implies discriminatory conduct, like Goodyear did with Lilly over the years “by not allowing her to earn merit raises throughout her career (Fieser, 2015, para. 8).” Being a woman in a male dominated field was a barrier that she overcome and the company could not legally keep her from working, so what better way to do so than by annual performances which affected her merit pay. Lilly Ledbetter's disparate pay claim had "charged insidious discrimination building up slowly but steadily (Jacobs, 2010, para. 7).” Pay is always kept confidential which was caused the discrimination underlying the issuance of each check. While deontology is a great overall ethical theory, of the “Golden Rule, “treat others as you want to be treated (Mosser, 2013, para. 2),” it has its issues and does not play well common sense. This theory can be conflicting to what is truly “right” or “just” because not every bears the same values, even disregarding their own sensible thought manner. Goodyear believed to be “right” when it came to Lilly’s yearly evaluations and merit rises. Based on her performance during her career, the company believes she was compensated for the work she put in. Goodyear disputed the claim and felt that they never discriminated against Lilly, but based on a few poor assessments she had during her career, she did it to herself. So if the company decides it is right in its decision, it can cause issues for others in the future. Discrimination can happen so minutely, one can just tear a worker’s performance apart to say they are not meeting the expectations and pay them based on that notion. Unequal positions such as this can “distort justice and morality, which is the exact opposite of what Kant aspired to teach in this theory (Punabantu, 2012, para. 10).” This ethical theory could cause issues when trying to help alleviate gender discrimination unless those who are aiding in this believe it to be necessary and right for everyone. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company was started back in 1839 and has been a very successful business in American History. It still today is one of the most famously known tire companies and has not made it this far by going against the grain of America and not abiding by the laws. According to Goodyear, they are “committed to achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable laws at all of our facilities. In the United States, for example, Goodyear regularly submits to compliance audits of our employment practices by the U.S. Department of Labor to help ensure that our practices, systems, and processes are aligned with applicable regulations (Goodyear, 2016, para. 3).” Goodyear is part of the free-market, private property business system and maintains a direct responsibility to its consumers and employers (Friedman, 1970, para. 12). So, why would a company of this magnitude, go to the lengths of turning themselves into an unethically run business? Well sometimes the people a company employs has a different motive when it comes to the business aspect of things. A possible situation in this Ledbetter case could have varied from the manager unintentional displayed discrimination towards Lilly or was simply looking to save as much money as they possibly could. What better way to do so than keeping labor costs down any way possible? Morally I feel Goodyear believed they were doing the right thing and it was necessary to not pay Lilly when her annual reviews came up because her performance was not meeting the expectations of the business. This case has been one to stand out as one of interesting cases concerning gender discrimination in pay. While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been established to protect those like Lilly Ledbetter, these things still continue to happen in our work force. Enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights was given to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to ensure that employee have a right to file suits of discrimination against their employers when they feel they have been wrongfully treated (Fieser, 2015, para. 5). These types of laws and enforcement boards are necessary to stop the violation of discriminatory acts against those they feel they can discriminate against. Businesses have the right to run freely in this company but are not allowed to do it at the expense of employees and their rights as individuals. We have come a long way in America and today’s society, but we are still fighting an uphill battle when it comes to equality and making decisions based on potential outcome of the consequences we face. If an individual does the work and is 100% responsible, the compensation should be 100% across the board for both men and women. We have an ethical responsibility today to keep our free-market capitalist society from being divided and discriminating the very ones we have laws to protect. Any company that discriminates between employees based on their gender is not morally justifiable. References Barnes, L. (2015). The American Story: Perspectives and Encounters from 1877. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Bureau, W. (2015). Data and statistics. Retrieved from United States Department of Labor: Fieser, J. (2015). Introduction to Business Ethic, Second Edition. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Friedman, M. (1970, September 3). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profit. Retrieved from New York Times Magazine: Goodyear. (2016). Employment Practices. Retrieved from Haines, W. (n.d.). Consequentialism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Jacobs, R. (2010). Say when: An analysis of post - ledbetter continuing violations. Employee Relations Law Journal, vol 36(2) , 19-41. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 500 U.S. 618. (2006). Retrieved from Legal Information Institue: Mosser, K. (2013). Ethics and Social Responsibility. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Mulgan, T. (2015). Utilitarianism for a broken world. Utilitas, vol. 27(1) , pp. 92-114. O'Neill, O. (1993). A simplified account of Kant’s Ethics. . In T. Regan (Ed.), Matters of Life and Death , pp. 411-415. Punabantu, S. (2012). Applying relevant ethical theories to equality. Munich Personal RePEc Archive , 1-64. Unknown. (2015). Equal Pay. Retrieved from United States Department of Labor: Unknown. (2000). Gender Equality in Ireland. Retrieved from COMHIONANNAS INSCNE IN ÉIRINN: