Gender discrimination has always been a controversial issue in America. Women in the nation have been suffering long-term, extensive, systemic, and systematic prejudice. Different forms of gender bias that exist secretly or publicly all over America have led to a concealed pattern of gender injustice in society. Although the U.S. is one of the economically advanced countries in the globe, it fails in formulating and enforcing effective protection for the economic rights of women. U.S. Different laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, outlaw discrimination based on an individual's sex while prohibiting gender-based wage discrimination practices. However, women are increasingly exposed to serious prejudice in not only employment but also career development and payment structure. Ledbetter v . Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s case presents an example of prolonged and deep-rooted gender discrimination in the history of the United States. This case landed in the doorsteps of the U.S. Supreme Court with a view of getting a fair ruling in the advancement of the women's economic ruling. The case was later dismissed on legal technicalities. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. case, Goodyear acted unethically in light of the Duty Theory.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Ms. Ledbetter joined the Goodyear Co. Alabama plant as a supervisor in 1979. While at the start of her career in the company, she earned the entry pay equal to her male counterparts, as the years progressed her pay mismatched that of the male colleagues. Through systematic performance evaluations, Ledbetter was denied merit pay raises, which resulted in her pension being less compared to that of her male colleagues despite joining the company at the same time (Guinier, 2013). Although she noticed something throughout her career, she did not realize how such things could affect her retirement package. Perhaps, given that Lilly worked in a male-dominated company and field, she took some things for granted and, therefore, she could not build her case before retirement. After retirement, Ledbetter filed her case with the civil court where she was awarded her lost earnings, including punitive damages. However, she could not celebrate as Goodyear appealed to the Supreme Court.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In 2007, the Supreme Court dismissed a pay-discrimination case filed by Lilly Ledbetter against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Ledbetter had sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. for discriminative pay structure (Guinier, 2013). At the end of her career, Lilly Ledbetter had learned that despite doing the same work and working similar conditions just like her male colleagues, the company paid her less. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. created and enforced a discriminative pay structure that favored male employees. All along, the company was fully aware that pay discrepancies existed in its internal human resources operations. While it acted aware of the matter, it is clear that its unethical practices were well in violation of the legal parameters protecting all people against employment discrimination, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
Contravention of the Duty Theory
While the managers and supervisors' actions are legally wrong under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, undercutting the pay of Lilly Ledbetter against the duty theory contravenes the Kant's duty theory. In 1788, Immanuel Kant formulated the duty-based deontological moral theory. According to the theory, people are under a moral obligation to act in line with a set of rules and principles regardless of the outcome (Peterson, 2014). The action and outcome in deontological theory are judged separately. While an outcome could be admirable, it could be morally wrong. Given that, duty ethics upholds that entities' moral standards conform to duties and obligations, this requirement is not binding to people only but also organizations. When companies start operations within the economy, they are under obligation to operate within certain duties that align with integrity conduct. They should carry out their practices, including employees' compensation in an ethical manner. Therefore, they should not discriminate against the pay structure of their workers on gender lines. Concerning the Ledbetter case, Goodyear acted against the duty theory because it paid her less than her male counterparts did.
Concerning the Kantian Duty Theory, Goodyear is culpable of gender discrimination against Lilly Ledbetter. The company's management acted in violation of the categorical imperative in which Kant holds that it applies unconditionally to all because people possess rational will. According to the categorical imperative concept, people should act only as per that truism in which they can, at the same time, resolve that it be enacted as a universal law (Yudanin, 2015, p.601). Contrary to this position, the management of Goodyear Co. paid Lilly Ledbetter a pay, which cannot be conceived in the law of nature due to its partiality. Her pay was less than her male counterparts were. The company management acted with an exception in favor of the male employees. They were morally wrong because the same treatment accorded to Ledbetter could not in equal measure be extended to the rest of the workforce, specifically, the male colleagues.
People live in pursuit of their happiness as the end of their struggles. The Goodyear Co. pay discrepancy that reduced Ledbetter's pension at the end of her career service serves not to advance but to curtail her happiness. The company act violates the natural necessity as viewed under the categorical imperative that people own contentment as an end (Crisp, 2015). Although Kant used this claim to define the difference between problematic and assertoric imperatives, it demonstrates the imperfect duty people have in helping others. The management of the Goodyear Company failed this maxim on its pay discrimination against Lilly Ledbetter. Rather than assisting her in realizing equal happiness just like her male colleagues at their retirement, they acted to the contrary. They used systemic means to limit her progressive growth in the company and, therefore, stagnation of her pay rise. Instead of helping her develop her talent, the company applied performance evaluations to limit her growth.
Goodyear management actions were unjust because they prejudiced Ledbetter's pay structure compared to her male colleagues. Ledbetter and the male counterparts were not equally treated. The pay discrepancy is an illustration of the injustice meted against her. Categorical imperative envisions rational treatment of people in a manner that is right and just (Peterson, 2014). As Crisp (2015) submits, an action is right if it does not contravene, but can coexist with the freedom of all people as conceived in the universal law. In view of the Goodyear Co. actions, it is clear that it violated the right and freedom concept. Reasonably, the management rationally willed to create the discriminative pay structure that unjustly reduced Ledbetter's pension payment and ultimate happiness.
Some people support that the actions of Goodyear Co. against Lilly Ledbetter were morally justifiable. According to Brake (2016), the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. should not have elicited the acrimonious debate it attracted in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. Similarly, Hays and Morrow (2013) argue that the Supreme Court could not hold Goodyear culpable for the pay discrepancies because it acted in the best interest of the company. Hays and Morrow (2013) further elucidate that her performance evaluations necessitated the pay difference between Ledbetter and her male counterparts. Lilly could not be paid equally as her male colleagues because their performance fell at par. In this case, the Court could not establish grounds for upholding the case and the Civil Court's ruling, which gave Goodyear Co. a leeway not to compensate Ledbetter for the lost earnings.
However, while some individuals justify Goodyear Co.'s actions and the Supreme Court ruling, it is apparent that they miss the letter and spirit of the ruling. The Supreme Court did not dismiss Ledbetter's case on validity but on legal technicality that it was filled beyond the 180 days mandated by the Law. In fact, the court noted that Lilly Ledbetter could have fared better had her case claim been filled under another law with longer deadline (Guinier, 2013). The federal anti-discrimination law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has a short deadline, 180 days, which according to the Supreme Court had lapsed. Furthermore, while the Supreme Court particularly left open the likelihood of employees suing their discriminative employers even after the lapse of the deadline, it vacated the rigidity of applying the law. Remarkably, Lilly Ledbetter was locked out of the possibility of suing Goodyear only because she had been aware of the pay discrepancy since 1992 but launched her suit with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission in 1998. Being aware locked her out since the Supreme Court's vacation of the legal rigidity of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was to apply if the complainant was not aware of the discrimination. In light of this explanation, it is clear that Goodyear Co. remains culpable for gender discrimination in its pay structure, and its actions contravened the Duty Theory.
Conclusion
Although the Supreme Court dismissed the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. case, Goodyear acted unethically in light of the Duty Theory. Indeed, her case was dismissed on legal technicalities rather than validity. Notably, the pay discrepancy in Goodyear Co. contravened the Duty Theory. The company management rationally willed to formulate and implement a pay structure that would ultimately affect women negatively at the end of their service to the company. The Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. provides clear highlights on the company's violation of the Duty Theory. In reference to the Kantian categorical imperative concept, the unjust treatment is immoral because it promoted unfair treatment against women. In light of the universal law, the company management acted with an exception in favor of the male employees. They were morally wrong because the same treatment accorded to Ledbetter could not in equal measure be extended to the rest of the workforce, specifically, the male colleagues. While performance evaluations are imperative in advancing company productivity goals, they should not be used to advance immoral treatment against employees.
References
Brake, D. L. (2016). Reviving paycheck fairness: Why and how the factor-other-than-sex defense matters. Idaho L. Rev. , 52 , 889.
Crisp, R. (2015). A third method of ethics?. Philosophy and phenomenological research , 90 (2), 257-273.
Guinier, L. (2013). Courting the people: Demosprudence and the law/politics divide. Harvard Law Review , 127 (1), 437-444.
Hays, N., & Morrow, K. (2013). Gender discrimination in the workforce.
Peterson, C. (2014). The categorical imperative: Category theory as a foundation for deontic logic. Journal of Applied Logic , 12 (4), 417-461.
Yudanin, M. (2015). Can positive duties be derived from Kant’s categorical imperative?. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 18 (3), 595-614.
