Goodyear Gender Discrimination Case

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. is one of the landmark Supreme Court cases on the issue of pay inequities due to gender. The ruling in this case was made at a time when gender-based pay inequities continue to permeate the public and private sectors. Gender-based pay inequities are common in todays business environment despite amendments to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1963 Equal Pay Act (Riccucci, 2008). Existing pay disparities continue to make it difficult to achieve pay equality. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. not only raised legal concerns relating to pay discrimination but also highlighted an ethical problem. The ethical problem in this case is gender-based pay discrimination, which is a major issue facing women in the workplace. Despite the establishment of laws and policies to promote pay equality, women are not treated fairly as their male counterparts with regard to pay. Women with similar job skills as men and experience tend to receive low pay in comparison to men and for the same job. Ledbetters case sought to address the discrimination of unfair pay based on gender. The ruling in this case has significant implications on pay equality in both the public and private sectors.

Unequal pay between men and women in the workplace is not morally justifiable and discriminatory. The ethical theory of Deontology supports the view that gender-based pay disparities in unethical and morally unjustifiable on grounds that such acts are not the right thing to do under similar circumstances. Deontological ethics emphasizes that the right or wrong of an action is not determined based on its consequences but its conformity with moral norms (Aiston, 2011). Moral norms should be obeyed by all parties involved or by each moral agent. Deontological ethics is based on two motivations i.e. action aversion and harm aversion (Armstrong, Friesdorf & Conway, 2018). As a principle of duty ethics, deontological ethics emphasizes that the right or wrong of action is judged based on how it conforms to universal moral principles. An example of moral principles used to determine the right or wrong of action based on this ethical theory is treating every individual with dignity. Therefore, actions that avoid causing harm are consistent with the ethical theory of Deontology (Armstrong, Friesdorf & Conway, 2018).

The ethical theory of Deontology lends itself to the position that unequal pay between men and women is morally unjustifiable on the basis that such actions do not conform to universal moral principles. As previously indicated, one of the universally accepted moral principles is treating every individual with dignity. Therefore, determining whether gender-based pay inequalities are morally justifiable requires considering the extent to which it conforms to morally acceptable principles. Unequal pay does not conform to universal moral principles as it promotes unfair and discriminatory treatment of others. Moral principles rather than consequences are the premise for determining the morality of the pay disparities between men and women in the workplace. Moreover, Deontological ethics lend itself to the moral position on grounds that the issue is a form of gender discrimination, which promotes treatment of either gender unfairly and without dignity. Respect for human dignity is the right thing to do at all times and in all circumstances regardless of the outcomes. Respect for human dignity is at the core of issues relating to the unequal pay between men and women.

Two Premises

Gender-based pay disparities reflect unfair treatment of one gender and a lack of respect for human dignity. Traditionally, womens role was essentially staying at home and taking care of...

…childbirth and care (U.S. Department of Labor, 2009). Moreover, women prefer lower-paying jobs and family-friendly industries or jobs. Given these factors, it is nearly impossible to achieve the same level of pay between men and women. Therefore, the consideration of these factors implies that the unequal pay between men and women is morally justifiable to a great extent. Litman et al. (2020) contend that specific characteristics of the labor market suggest that women tend to select less paying jobs compared to men. Women have lower pay expectations and lower their remuneration demands when negotiating with employers.

A Rebuttal

The argument that individual characteristics and labor market factors justify the morality of pay inequity is refuted by the fact that it fails to consider the concept of equal pay for equal work. As shown in Ledbetters case, the ethical problem is unequal pay for equal work. Therefore, the objection does not consider situations where women do not receive equal pay for equal work compared to men. In addition, the ethical obligations employers have towards their employees are not taken into consideration in the objection. This implies that determining the morality of pay disparities requires examining factors beyon individual characteristics and labor market factors.

In conclusion, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. provides legal and ethical questions on the issue of pay disparities. The ethical problem in the case is the pay disparities between men and women for equal jobs. The ruling of the case primarily creates a 180-day window for filing gender pay discrimination complaints. This ruling has exacerbated controversies surrounding gender-based pay disparities. From an ethical perspective, unequal pay between men and women is not morally justifiable and discriminatory. The morality of gender-based pay disparities requires consideration of universal moral principles rather than simply focusing on individual characteristics and labor market factors. Universal…