Case: Jacksonville Shipyards
A ‘reasonable person’ may consider what Ms. Robinson was going through at Jacksonville Shipyards to be a hostile working environment due to the overall levels of exposure to sexual harassment targeting her as a woman. The fact that Ms. Robinson was being exposed to a wide array of pornographic material without her due consent means that the men within this particular workplace environment were hostile to her. Additionally, the fact that she reported the matter to her supervisor yet nothing was done about the situation means that she is in a hostile environment.
In the beginning, the offensive pictures, signs, and comments came across to Ms. Robinson as being poor tastes considering that none of her coworkers had engaged in any action that would suggest that she is harassed sexually. However, the moment her coworkers began using pictures or comments that were specifically targeted at her resulted in sexual harassment. An example can be seen from the picture that was making rounds, which displayed a nude woman, who had long blond hair, and a whip. It was clear that this picture was targeted at her considering that she had long blond hair and used a whip as part of regular duties.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Kant may argue that this kind of harassment in unethical taking into account that the actions can be defined as being wrong based on the actions themselves within a series of rules. One rule to consider is the fact that exposure of individuals to a sexual material without their due consent can be termed as being sexual harassment, which is unethical. That was the case for Ms. Robinson, who found herself in a situation where she was exposed to a wide range of sexual material, thus, defining her actions as being unethical from Kantian ethics.
A utilitarian may argue that the actions against Ms. Robinson ought to be considered as being unethical solely attributed to the consequences of the actions. Utilitarian ethics defines an action as being right or wrong depending on the consequences that the actions may have in the long term. In this case, the actions against Ms. Robinson had negative consequences for her and her ability to function effectively. Thus, this defines the actions as being unethical from a utilitarian perspective.
A follower of virtue ethics may argue that the employees would be expected to act in a professional manner considering that this is a professional environment. However, their decisions to engage in actions beyond their laid out expectations means that this would define their actions as being unethical. One instance of harassing behavior may be sufficient to determine a hostile working environment, as the single instance would give rise to more instances. In other words, lack of taking action against the single instance would result in a situation where similar actions are much more likely to occur within the working environment, thus, projecting this as a hostile action.
Case: Sex Discrimination at Walmart
The problems with allowing individual store managers to use their discretion in hiring and promoting employees reflect more on the fact that the store managers may use these powers to coerce women working within their stores. Additionally, this gives the store manager with undue advantage especially over the women, as it becomes much easier for them to retaliate in the event of a given action. In the case of Betty Dukes, that can be seen from the fact that the manager, within the store she was working, retaliated against her actions of complaining of discriminatory treatment. The fact that Betty Dukes sought to complain about discriminatory treatment against her resulted in her demotion, as well as, reduction in her wages.
The positive aspect associated with allowing store managers to use their discretion in hiring and promoting employees is that this helps towards ensuring that the store managers have the autonomy of weighing employees’ skills individually. It becomes difficult for the management of the store to make centralized decisions touching on the employees considering that they do not have a clear understanding of how the employees are performing. However, store managers can interact with the individual employees, which creates that provision from which to determine employees that would be fit for a given position.
I would agree with Walmart, to some extent, considering that although the company may intend to create an environment that is free from any form of discrimination, unconscious bias and sexism are elements that are rooted within the society. Thus, this means that the store managers would make their decisions while focusing on these two factors, which creates a situation where they are limited regarding the general outcomes. However, I would also disagree with this argument primarily because Walmart, as a company, is expected to lay out its policy expectations that govern the functioning of its stores. Thus, this means that although store managers may be exposed to unconscious bias and sexism, the policies limit them from using these aspects to determine the performance of the employees. Walmart ought to take responsibility for the same considering that the company has failed to adopt policies that would protect its employees.
