Argumentative Essay (revise my attachment please)

Running head: Gender Discrimination

Gender Discrimination

Garry Bray Jr.

Personal and Organizational Ethics

Instructor Larry Baker

July 15 2019

Gender Discrimination

- 1 -

1

1. Running head: Gender

Discrimination

Very well done running

head/header and title page.

[Larry Baker]

Running head: Gender Discrimination

Discrimination is prejudicial treatment of different groups of people or things, especially on the

grounds of race, age, or sex. For this assignment I will briefly give a description on the case of Ledbetter

vs. Goodyear. Gender discrimination has been an issue in the past, present, and future with businesses but

laws are always developing to better end discrimination of any kind. These laws are holding companies

responsible and the reimbursement may be a hefty price. Lilly worked as a supervisor for Goodyear for

about 19 years. She eventually caught wind that she was making thousands less per year than her male

counter parts of the same position. Closer to her retirement she decided to file a sexual discrimination

case against Goodyear. She successfully sued Goodyear but the appeal was reversed by the Eleventh

Circuit and the Supreme Court, because the action was not filed within 180 days. A plaintiff can challenge

harassment as long as at least one of the acts that together created the hostile environment occurred within

the 180-day charge-filing period (Brake, Grossman, 2017). The company’s lack of compassion toward

Lilly Ledbetter were instrumental in such laws like the Ledbetter act and the Paycheck fairness bill.

Goodyear’s main goal was profit-making and self-satisfaction and not the interest of their

employees. One reason I say this is in the article of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co it states

that even after Lilly Ledbetter won the case, the appeal was reversed because it was not filed within 180

days. Goodyear really was not trying to compensate Lilly Ledbetter for her discrimination law suit. This

was such an outrage that President Barack signed a bill called the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to keep this

unjust act from happening to others. On July 20, 2010 President Obama issued a statement calling for

passage of the Paycheck Fairness bill (Furchtgott, 2010). Lilly Ledbetter will not be the first to face

discrimination nor will she be the last to face discrimination, she had to persevere working without the

payment that she was entitled for too long. She tried to rectify her entitlement in court just to be denied.

She may not have won the compensation but she made a stand against discrimination for all, not just

women. Deontological is the ethical theory that best supports my claims for this discussion on Lilly

- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1. Running head:

The running header should

end on the title page. Only the

header title should persist.

Please see the APA guide.

[Larry Baker]

2. For this assignment

The definition of

discrimination is not the

reason for the description of

the case. Be sure to use

definitions to add clarity.

[Larry Baker]

3. are always developing

There seems to be laws that

resist the legislation of

equality as well as laws that

advance it. The movement of

progress may not be a

straight line. [Larry Baker]

4. Paycheck fairness

The role of fairness in this

case could be more explicitly

explained in the introduction.

[Larry Baker]

5. A clear thesis should be

stated here. [Larry Baker]

6. in the article of Ledbetter

v. Goodyear

Missing commas here.

[Larry Baker]

7. Goodyear really was not

trying to compensate Lilly

Ledbetter for her

discrimination law suit.

This

was such an outrage that

President Barack

This section continues the

description. The thesis

section should develop a

moral position. This should be

followed by two clear

premises. [Larry Baker]

Running head: Gender Discrimination

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. The Deontological theory is the position that moral standards

are grounded in instinctive rational obligations-or duties-which we have (Fieser, 2015). I feel this way

because clearly the case was won by Lilly Ledbetter but Goodyear weaseled out of it by finding a loop

hole. I’m not sure if Lilly Ledbetter brought these claims to management before she decided to take it to

court but that was their chance to opt out and reimburse her for everything that she was owed. Goodyear

decided not to do what was morally right and decide it was easier to fight it out in court where they

actually lost the case. The only reason why the law suit was reversed was because it was not within the

180 day window. Lilly Ledbetter was obligated a fair share and did not receive her proper entitlement.

From this case we see Goodyear’s moral principle and who they are obligated to “themselves”. Goodyear

had a moral obligation to fulfil and fail miserably. Lilly Ledbetter was only asking to be compensated for

the income that she was due, the income that her male counter parts in the same position were getting

without question.

Discrimination of anyone or anything in the workplace is demoralizing, the deontological theory

by Immanuel Kant states to do what is objectively right. The ethical and morally right thing to do in this

Lilly Ledbetter case against Goodyear, was to compensate her for years of loyalty and dedication. Even

though she was getting short changed for years she still stayed. That tells me she was loyal to Goodyear

she even retired for the cooperation. The company just was not loyal to her and her years of service. The

company was obviously motivated by profit at the expense of its employees. The rule of business require

complete honesty, and when businesses strategically misrepresent themselves, they are on the side of

wrong and can be held legally responsible for their conduct (Fieser, 2015). No individual is meant to be

treated unfairly based on race, sex, religion or gender. From the case of Lilly Ledbetter and Goodyear it is

clear that she was treat unjust and unfairly. Being denied payment that you deserve due to an individual’s

sex is discrimination if I have ever seen it.

- 3 -

1

2

1. The only reason why the

law suit was reversed was

because it was not within

the 180 day window.

What might this mean,

ethically? How does time

factor into ethics? [Larry

Baker]

2. The company was

obviously motivated by

profit at the expense of its

employees.

Does profit motive contradict

ethical obligation? [Larry

Baker]

Running head: Gender Discrimination

The deontological theory emphasizes the importance of seeing an individual for their worth and

work ethic and not their gender. The Supreme Court applied utilitarianism to the case of Lilly Ledbetter

vs Goodyear. I came to this conclusion because Lilly Ledbetter lost her case because the ruling of the case

was for the benefit of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. Utilitarianism is the theory that an action is morally

right if the consequences of that action are more favorable that unfavorable to everyone (Fieser, 2015).

The court just made a cooperation of that magnitude richer. Increase the company’s pleasure and

happiness and reduce the company’s pain and suffering. They were not in interest of the plaintiff Lilly

Ledbetter.

- 4 -

1

1. Utilitarianism is the

theory that an action is

morally right if the

consequences of that

action are more favorable

that unfavorable to

everyone

This is a strong contrast. The

conclusion, however, is

debatable. The main issue at

stake is whether or not the

legal stipulation of time is

utilitarian or deontological. It

seems as though the contrast

would be stronger between

motives that would decide the

case since the law was the

reason for the court's

decision. [Larry Baker]

Running head: Gender Discrimination

References

Brake, D. & Grossman, J. (2007). Title V11’s protection against pay discrimination: The impact of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Regional Labor Review, 10(1), 28-36. Retrieved form http://www/hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/colleges/hclas/cld/cld_rlr_fall07_title7_grossman.pdf

- 5 -

[no notes on this page]

Running head: Gender Discrimination

Fieser, J. (2015). Introduction to business ethics [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/

Furchtgott, D. (2010). Testimony on the gender pay gap [Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee]. Retrieved from http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/2a1f8ad4-f649-4ad3-a742- 268d946962bd/furchgott-roth-tectimony.pdf

- 6 -

[no notes on this page]