A Case of Gender Discrimination

Women’s participation in the workplace has increased significantly in the past decades. By the 1990s, about 74% of prime working-age women aged 25 to 54 were employed relative to 93% of prime working-age men. Despite the tremendous progress in women penetrating the labor market, women still have numerous challenges relating to gender discrimination in the workplace. For instance, there has always been a raw wage gap between men and women in the workforce, with women earning much less than men. The wage difference as of the 1970s was about 61% but reduced to 21% by the 2000s, and by 2020, women earned 16% less than what men earned based on analysis by Pew Research Center on hourly earnings of the part-time and full-time workforce (Barroso & Brown, 2021).  However, some companies have been reported on numerous occasions for promoting gender discrimination in the workplace.

This essay explores a case of gender discrimination at Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, where Lilly Ledbetter, the company’s only female supervisor, sued the firm for gender discrimination based on remuneration. Ledbetter worked for the company for 20 years and claimed that Goodyear underpaid her. Her salary was 40% less than the least-paid male supervisor in the same job. Her lawsuit Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company was dismissed by the Supreme Court for being untimely. Ledbetter filed her case too later. Employees should sue the employer within 180 days following the first discrimination, according to employment law (Weinberg, 2009). However, from an impartial perspective, Goodyear company discriminated against Ledbetter based on her gender, going against Equal Pay Act, which demands that employers pay both men and women equally in similar job roles.

The Goodyear Company’s gender discrimination against Ledbetter cannot be justified. Even though Ledbetter never succeeded with the lawsuit against the company based on late application, the company’s decision to pay the plaintiff 40% less than her male colleagues in the same job group and the court ruling were all against the utilitarian theory. Utilitarianism theory of ethics advocates for actions that lead to pleasure and happiness and rejects actions that harm or cause unhappiness. According to the first utilitarian principle, pleasure and happiness are the only phenomena that have intrinsic value.

The second principle holds that actions are only correct when promoting happiness and wrong if unhappiness results. And lastly, everybody’s happiness and pleasure count equally. Goodyear Company could have acknowledged that gender discrimination in the workplace causes more unhappiness than it can lead to happiness (Mondal, 2016). The act of gender discrimination against Ledbetter resulted in unhappiness and loss of morale for the employee and even other female workers working for the organization after discovering that the company discriminates against the female workforce. Being the case went public, there is a possibility that many female consumers and stockholders were not happy with the company’s actions. The Supreme Court was also criticized for its failure to interpret the law to benefit the greater society. For instance, some critics argued that the court could have provided an open possibility for the plaintiff to sue after 180 days if there is a chance she failed to and could not discover the discriminative pay earlier. However, the Supreme Court’s decision was overturned by enacting the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, which amended the 180-day statute of limitation. The amendment provides that equal-pay lawsuits reset with every paycheck impacted by discriminatory acts (Wade & Fiorentino, 2017). This shows that Goodyear Company cannot be justified for discriminating against Ledbetter.

Gender discrimination in the workplace leads to workplace conflicts, decreases job satisfaction, morale and motivation to work, reducing productivity. Ledbetter claimed that she was unfairly assessed relative to her male counterparts and that she remained in the same position for over 20 years, earning a salary that is 40% way below the male employees. Besides, Ledbetter stated that the discovery that her male colleagues in the same job group were earning extra pay and additional benefits made her feel worse about herself. The discovery altered her perception and attitude towards the male colleagues, a situation often referred to perceived discrimination. Forming a negative perception about the male colleagues meant that a conflict was already created between Ledbetter and the male workers caused by hatred.

In addition to causing conflicts within an organization, perceived discrimination harms the health of staff. Etheridge (2015) explains that perceived discrimination is among the causes of stress and depression in workplaces and in some instances, it has been linked to workplace suicides. Besides, Ledbetter’s work morale and job satisfaction also decreased, affecting the company’s productivity (Sipe et al. 2016). The act caused unhappiness to Ledbetter and her female colleagues, hence against the Utilitarian moral theory concern what a right action. Besides, gender discrimination in the workplace also leads to lawsuits (legal issues) that affect the company’s productivity and reputation. Some laws protect against gender inequality in the office, such as the Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and now the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Wade & Fiorentino, 2017). Following these laws can protect against gender inequality in the workplace.

In whichever way one might look at it, Goodyear Company’s decision to discriminate against Ledbetter by paying less because of her gender was immoral and against the Utilitarian theory of ethics. Paying the employee 40% less than her male counterparts’ workers in the same job group was unfair to the plaintiff and her family and other dependents. This caused unhappiness to Ledbetter and her larger dependents and female workers, against the utilitarian theory of ethics, which advocates for actions that result in greater good for the greatest population. Paying Ledbetter better could have bettered the lives of her family members, and she could have invested even for her future generations.  The Supreme Court’s decision also failed to consider the utilitarian theory. The court considered the case to be more of a statutory interpretation than a constitutional interpretation. For instance, the court did not consider that the plaintiff might not have discovered or could not discover the discriminatory actions by the company within the 180days she became the supervisor. Ledbetter discovered the ills late, but they remained discriminatory acts, condemned by the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Wade & Fiorentino, 2017). Concerning the economic systems, the government could have stepped in to protect Ledbetter’s right to better pay and set the precedence for the labor market to follow.

References

Barroso, A., & Brown, A. (2021). Gender pay gap in US held steady in 2020. Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 25.

Mondal, A. L. (2016). Mill’s critique of Bentham’s utilitarianism. International Journal of Philosophy Study (IJPS), 4, 13-21.

Sipe, S. R., Larson, L., Mckay, B. A., & Moss, J. (2016). Taking off the blinders: A comparative study of university students’ changing perceptions of gender discrimination in the workplace from 2006 to 2013. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(2), 232-249.

Wade, M., & Fiorentino, S. (2017). Gender pay inequality: An examination of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act six years later. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 37, 29-36.

Weinberg, J. A. (2009). Blameless Ignorance-The Ledbetter Act and Limitations Periods for Title VII Pay Discrimination Claims. NYUL Rev., 84, 1756.