In the Week 3 Assignment, you engaged in a case analysis of a current business problem using some of the components of an argumentative essay. In this written assignment, you will write a complete arg

- 1 - 1 1. Running head: Gender Discrimination Very well done running head/header and title page.

[Larry Baker] Running head: Gender Discrimination Gender Discrimination Garry Bray Jr.

Personal and Organizational Ethics Instructor Larry Baker July 15 2019 Gender Discrimination - 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 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 - 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 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. - 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 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. - 5 - [no notes on this page]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 - 6 - [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