GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE
1
Running head: WORKPLACE GENDER DISCRIMINATION
Ledbetter vs. Good Year Tire Company Discrimination
Marla Spence
PHI 445 Personal & Organizational Ethics
Instructor David Strand
August 16, 2019
GENDER DISCRIMONATION IN THE WORKPLACE
2
Introduction
If we were to take a look into our history, we would be able to see that there have been
many forms of discrimination, which have in many ways caused a plague upon our country.
Therefore, the moral problems within this case which we will be looking into with Lilly
Ledbetter vs. Good Year Tire Company is one which the company knowingly conducted pay
discrimination within their company that was based within their Gadsen, Alabama plant, where
Ms. Ledbetter was employed as a supervisor in her department for twenty years. According to
Zipel & Kleiner, (1998), gender discrimination is an act, which defines actions that specifically
denies opportunities salary wages, benefits or promotions to a person based on their gender. This
type of discrimination allowed for Good Year Tire Company to be able to manipulate Lilly
Ledbetter by causing her to the same work as he fellow male co-workers without receiving her
much deserved pay. Ms. Ledbetter would go on to sue the company on the basis of gender
discrimination in regards to her pay in 1998. She would fight suggesting that her pay was that of
forty percent much lower than that of her fellow male supervisors in the same position as she,
(Brake & Grossman, 2007). The cause of this situation was due in part to that of the unintended
consequences of our societies prejudice to the gender because companies would fail to pay its
employees equally and not on the basis of gender which would give cause for gender
discrimination. This would be seen as a social issue which makes a situation also where society
would see it as controlling one’s pay and making it to seem as though even if a female can do the
same work as a male she still would not receive the same pay because of her gender. Therefore,
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE
3
on the other hand, it also has capitalistic features due in part to the freedoms of the transactions
at hand and the protection and privacy of a human that would enable them to be paid equally,
(EOEA). The law would state that the employee would have 180 days after their first
discrimination check once they first find out they’re being discriminated against by their
employers company to file, (Allison, 2008). However, rules and regulations are set forth as
means of protection and enabling us to be able to be treated equally and fairly with respect no
matter what our gender, race, or religion. Thus given us the freedom and the rights against such
actions as pay discriminations as it has been brought to the surface and has opened the doors for
such indigenous actions. It has been know for such actions as such to set the grounds for moral
discrimination actions of pay pertaining to one’s gender by companies.
In this paper I will show views on why Ms. Lilly Ledbetter was unfairly treated in the
aspects of pay and was not paid on the basis of her performance but because of her gender,. The
ground rules here will show just why it is the moral responsibility of a company to be
responsible in their set actions. The ruling, which was made by the Supreme Court, was one of a
majority ruling, which would be n favor of the Good Year Tire co. This was to be an unjust
ruling under the ethical theory of utilitarianism. The utilitarianism theory would consist of three
major components; Consequences, Consequences of Happiness, Unhappiness, Assessing the
beneficial consequences of actions as everyone is affected, (Fieser, 2015, p. 17). This is by
means of the actions, which are weighted more than the intent. Even if the intent were morally
GENDER DISCRIMONATION IN THE WORKPLACE
4
questionable the actions would be nonetheless morally good if achieved in a good consequence.
These rules of implication are not just moral duties to be placed on a company in an effort to
avoid them from discriminating against its employees but for the rest of society as well. As for
the consequence of happiness and unhappiness this could by all means lead to an individual
becoming unhappy by a decision and the other becoming happy, in other words going either
way. As itr was when The Supreme Court had rendered down their ruling of 5-4 in favor of
Good Year Tire and made a decision that the annual pay not be contested within 180 day of the
actions as stated in the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963, and can not be repaired by title
VII’s protection, (Barkac & Barkac, 2009). You see utilitarianism is an ethical theory, which
]