Introduction
The modern workplace is a social place leaden with legal issues hence the constant conflict between legal and social considerations, more so when the issue of gender is factored. Strict adherence to laws may sometimes lead to social problems that will interfere with the morale of the employees and affect productivity (Dreiband et al., 2015) . Yet, seeking to adhere more to social considerations could result in legal liabilities for gender discrimination. It is inter alia for these reasons that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), an organization with human experts was established. The human inference in the EEOC is meant to play a balancing role when there is a conflict between social issues and legal issues as in the instant case study.
Background and Analysis of the Case Study
The Main Office
AB Pneumatics from the advent does not present a very good first impression when it comes to gender parity. At the referenced facility, all four managers are male while all six clerical staff are female. Based on this fact alone, it is clear that gender-based considerations are made when officers are appointed to the organization. It is normal for organizations to have a higher ratio of a certain gender in certain jobs, based on traditional and social preferences (Case, 2014). However, when the differences are a hundred percent, it crosses the threshold of coincidence and tradition into that of gender bias.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Factory Building
In the factory building, there are eight male employees for every female employee which is an exponentially high and inordinate ratio. Once again the issue of social and traditional consideration can be factored in this area. Working in manufacturing factories was traditionally considered a man’s job due to the heavy work involved (Dreiband et al., 2015) . A lot has changed, however, with the introduction of automation making is possible for men to work just as well as women in industries. Also, social and traditional issues come into play and it is possible to have as many as twice the number of men than women working in the factory without there being gender discrimination (Case, 2014). However, when there is eight times the number of men to that of women, chances of gender discrimination are high.
The Bathroom Issue
Finally, there is the issue of bathroom availability and usage where the legal and social issues become blurred. The use of a bathroom is one of the most sensitive issues in America today especially with the concept of transgender and gender-neutral bathrooms. Many women feel that they have always been disadvantaged when it comes to bathroom usage (Gersen, 2017). Normally, in a gathering with an equal number of women and men, there will be a long queue at the ladies bathroom and no queue at the man’s bathroom. At AB Pneumatics, all the 10 women working inside the factory have to visibly cross a parking lot when going to use the bathroom. It is possible for an unkind person to count how many times a lady had been to the bathroom on a shift just as it is also possible for the ladies to feel conscious about it. The men in the factory, however, do not go through this form of indignity. A little mitigation from a gender perspective is found in the fact that the 80 men share one bathroom.
Conclusion and Decision
Three areas have been canvassed herein and in all three areas, gender discrimination is detectable on the part of AB Pneumatics. On the issue of the bathroom, general poor planning can be seen based on the fact that so many men have to share one toilet. However, there is also the gender issue of women having to cross a parking lot yet men do not face the same. Three gender issues, out of three areas of assessment cannot be a coincidence and must be reflective of an endemic gender-bias in the factory. EEOC should sue AB Pneumatics for gender-based discrimination.
References
Case , M. A. (2014). Legal protections for the personal best of each employee: Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination, the legacy of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, and the Prospect of ENDA. Stan. L. Rev. , 66 , 1333-1451
Dreiband, E. S., Swearingen, B., & Day, J. (2015). The evolution of Title VII—sexual orientation, gender identity, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Jones Day, Cleveland, OH. 1-14
Gersen, J. S. (2017, June 19). Who's afraid of gender-neutral bathrooms? Retrieved March 23, 2018, from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/whos-afraid-of-same-sex-bathrooms
