Would it be right for a store manager to break a promise to a customer and sell some hard-to-find merchandise to someone else whose need for it is greater?

CHAPTER 11 Job Discrimination

Learning Objectives

After completing this chapter students should be able to:

 Identify various subtle and not-so-subtle forms of discrimination.  Understand the pervasiveness and systemic nature of discrimination on the basis of race, gender,

and ethnicity.  Address issues of discrimination within an ethical framework.  Appreciate the ways in which discrimination is destructive to individuals and organizations.  Consider the pros and cons of existing legal remedies such as affirmative action that are designed

to counter job discrimination.

Glossary

1. affirmative action programs: Programs used to reverse the harm done to minorities due to past discrimination.

2. comparable worth: The doctrine that men and women should be paid the same for the same work; and similar amounts for jobs of similar qualifications, skill, effort, and responsibility.

3. pink-collar occupations: Jobs traditionally given to women that pay significantly less than traditionally male-dominated jobs.

4. sexual harassment: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.

Chapter Summary Points

1. Discrimination in employment involves adverse decisions against employees or job applicants based on their membership in a group that is an object of prejudice or viewed as inferior or deserving of unequal treatment. Discrimination can be intentional or unintentional, institutional or individual.

2. Statistics, together with evidence of deep-seated attitudes and institutional practices and policies, point to racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace.

3. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, and national origin. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, many companies developed affirmative action programs to correct racial imbalances existing as a result of past discrimination. Critics charge that in practice affirmative action has often meant preferential treatment of women and minorities and even reverse discrimination against white men.

4. The Supreme Court has adopted a case-by-case approach to affirmative action. Although the legal situation is complex, in a series of rulings over the years a majority of the Court has upheld the general principle of affirmative action, as long as such programs are moderate and flexible. Race can legitimately be taken into account in employment decisions, but only as one among several factors. Affirmative action programs that rely on rigid and unreasonable quotas or that impose excessive hardship on present employees are illegal.

5. The moral issues surrounding affirmative action are controversial. Its defenders argue that compensatory justice demands affirmative action programs; that affirmative action is needed to

© 2017 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

11-1

permit fairer competition; and that affirmative action is necessary to break the cycle that keeps minorities and women locked into poor-paying, low-prestige jobs.

6. Critics of affirmative action argue that affirmative action injures white men and violates their rights; that affirmative action itself violates the principle of equality; and that nondiscrimination (without affirmative action) will suffice to achieve our social goals.

7. The doctrine of comparable worth holds that women and men should be paid on the same scale for doing different jobs if they involve equivalent skill, effort, and responsibility.

8. Advocates of comparable worth say that women have been shunted into low-paying jobs, that they suffer from a discriminatory labor market, and that justice requires that they receive equal pay for doing jobs of equal worth. Some contend further that monetary reparations are due to women who in the past have not received equal pay for work of equal value.

9. Opponents of comparable worth claim that women have freely chosen their occupations and are not entitled to compensation. They contend that only the market can and should determine the value of different jobs. Revising pay scales would also be expensive.

10. Sexual harassment is widespread. It includes unwelcome sexual advances and other conduct of a sexual nature in which submission to such conduct is a basis for employment decisions (quid pro quo) or such conduct substantially interferes with an individual’s work performance (hostile work environment). Sexual harassment is a kind of discrimination and is illegal.

11. Employees encountering sexually harassing behavior from coworkers should make it clear that the behavior is unwanted. If it persists, harassed employees should document the behavior and report it to the appropriate person or office in the organization. In the case of sexual threats or offers from supervisors, they should do this immediately. If internal channels are ineffective, employees should seek legal advice.

Additional Resources for Exploring Chapter Content

Further Reading

 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII)  Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)  Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)  Equal Pay Act (EPA) [Links to all four can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/howtofil.html]

Internet Resources

 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] on Sexual Harassment http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html

 EEOC page on How to file a charge of discrimination http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/howtofil.html

 Information about the European Union's studies that showed a link between sexual harassment and the well being of the victims.

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/shworkpl.pdf

 Article on Kingston Herald, “Sexual Harassment Bad for Victims and Business” http://kingstonherald.com/release/sexual-harassment-bad-for-victims-and-for-business-2010383

Other Resources

© 2017 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

11-2

Film  North Country, 2005 Based on the true story of a class action sexual harassment lawsuit

© 2017 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

11-3

This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following are prohibited by law: • any public performance or display, including transmission of any image over a network; • preparation of any derivative work, including the extraction, in whole or in part, of any images; • any rental, lease, or lending of the program.

Chapter Eleven: Job Discrimination

Overview

 Chapter Eleven examines the following topics:

(1) The meaning and forms of job discrimination

(2) Statistical and attitudinal evidence of discrimination

(3) Historical and legal context of affirmative action

(4) Moral arguments for and against affirmative action

(5) Doctrine of comparable worth and controversy

(6) The problem of sexual harassment

Introduction

 Job discrimination has many variations.  Affirmative action has been one proposed remedy for

past discrimination. What moral arguments exist for and against

discrimination? What are the obligations of employers toward their

employees regarding discrimination issues?

Meaning of Job Discrimination

 Definition: Job discrimination occurs when:

(1) An employment decision in some way harms or disadvantages an employee or a job applicant.

(2) The decision is based on membership in a certain group, rather than on individual merit.

(3) The decision rests on prejudice, false stereotypes, or the assumption that the group in question is in some way inferior and thus does not deserve equal treatment.

Meaning of Job Discrimination

 Forms of discrimination: Discrimination can be individual or institutional, intentional or unwitting.

 Arguments against discrimination: It involves false assumptions about a group and harms its members, so utilitarians would reject it due to its ill effects on overall human welfare.

 Kantians would repudiate it as failing to respect people as ends in themselves.

 Discrimination is also unjust.

Evidence of Discrimination

 Statistical evidence: Studies reveal the persistence of discrimination in American life. Research shows wide economic disparities between

whites and racial minorities.  It shows significant occupational and income

differences seen in white males as compared to women and minorities.

Few women and minorities can be found at the very top of the business world.

Evidence of Discrimination

 Attitudinal evidence: Statistics alone do not conclusively establish discrimination – other elements may account for the disparities in income and position between men and women and between whites and other races.

 Widespread racist and sexist attitudes and biased institutional practices and policies come into play.

 Women and minorities often find themselves measured by a “white male” value system.

Affirmative Action: The Legal Context

 The Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) declared racially segregated schooling as unconstitutional and helped launch the civil rights movement in the U.S.

 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (later amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972) prohibited all forms of discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin.

Affirmative Action: The Legal Context

 The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967 and 1978), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) further defined illegal discrimination.

 By the 1970s, companies contracting with the federal government were required to develop affirmative action programs.

 They reflected the courts’ recognition that job discrimination can exist even in the absence of conscious intent to discriminate.

Affirmative Action: The Legal Context

 Many companies believe that they benefit from affirmative action by becoming more diverse.

 Critics say that it has often meant illegal quotas, preferential treatment of women and minorities, or reverse discrimination against white males.

 Many Americans now oppose affirmative action, and political opposition to it has grown greater than ever, particularly regarding federal programs.

Affirmative Action: The Legal Context

 The Supreme Court has adopted a case-by-case approach to affirmative action. Overall a majority of the Court has upheld programs

that are moderate and flexible. Race can be taken into account employment

decisions, but only as one factor among many. Programs that demand rigid and unreasonable quotas

or that impose excessive hardships on present employees are illegal.

Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues

 Arguments for affirmative action:

(1) Compensatory justice demands affirmative action programs.

Point: We have a moral obligation to redress past injuries.

Counterpoint: People today can’t be expected to atone for the sins of the past – and why should today’s candidates receive any special consideration?

Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues

Arguments for affirmative action:

(2) It is necessary to permit fairer competition.

Point: Taking race and sex into account makes job competition fairer by keeping white men from having an undeserved competitive edge.

Counterpoint: Employers have the right to seek the best- qualified candidates without trying to make life fair for everybody – and disadvantaged whites are also out there.

Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues

Arguments for affirmative action:

(3) It is needed to break the cycle of minorities and women locked in low-paying, low-prestige jobs.

Point: Even if racism and sexism ended, mere nondiscrimination would need a century or more for blacks and women to equalize their positions.

Counterpoint: Affirmative action has its costs – making everyone racially conscious and causing resentment and frustration.

Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues

 Arguments against affirmative action:

(1) It injures white men and violates their rights.

Point: Such programs violate the right of white men to be treated as individuals and to have racial or sexual considerations not affect employment decisions.

Counterpoint: The interests of white men have to be balanced against society’s interest in promoting these programs.

Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues

Arguments against affirmative action:

(2) Affirmative action itself violates the principle of equality.

Point: If equality is the goal, it must be the means, too. Such programs are based on the same principle that encouraged past discrimination.

Counterpoint: We can’t wish the reality of discrimination away by pretending the world is colorblind, when it is not.

Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues

 Arguments against affirmative action:

(3) Nondiscrimination alone will achieve our social goals; stronger affirmative action is unnecessary.

Point: The 1964 Civil Rights Act already outlaws job discrimination, many discrimination cases have been won before the EEOC or in court. So we only need to insist on rigorous enforcement of the law.

Counterpoint: The absence of vigorous affirmative action programs halts progress.

Comparable Worth

The meaning of the comparable worth: It says that women and men should be paid on the same scale – not only for doing the same or equivalent jobs, but also for doing different jobs involving equal skill, effort, and responsibility

Comparable Worth  Advocates point to statistics showing that women are in

more low-paying jobs than men – and that the more women dominate an occupation, the less it pays.

 Some say monetary reparations (retroactive payment adjustments) are due to for past work.

 They believe that paying women equally for a job of equal worth is a matter of social justice.

 Opponents say that women have freely chosen lower- paying occupations.

Sexual Harassment

 Definition: “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.”

Sexual Harassment

 Two forms of sexual harassment:

(1) Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a supervisor makes an employee’s job opportunities conditional on the employee’s entering into a sexual relationship with, or granting sexual favors to, the supervisor.

(2) Hostile working environment is behavior of a sexual nature that is distressing to workers (often, but not exclusively, women) and interferes with their ability to perform on the job.

Sexual Harassment

 The view of the law courts: In sexual harassment cases, the courts look to what a reasonable person would find offensive.

 But, what matters morally is to respect each person’s choices and wishes.

Sexual Harassment

 Dealing with sexual harassment: An employee encountering sexual harassment should:

(1) Make it clear that the behavior is unwanted (2) If the behavior persists, document it by keeping a

record of what has occurred, who was involved, and when it happened

(3) Complain to the appropriate supervisor (4) If internal complaints prove ineffective, consider seeing

a lawyer and learning in detail what legal options are available