Chpt 11: Job Discrimination
unintentional discrimination
results from policies that have unanticipated consequences favoring one group over another can be a result of past policies
disparate treatement
results when employees from protected groups (such as disabled individuals) are intentionally treated differently
sexual favoritisim
some lower courts include this in sexual harassment women being discriminated against because they boss was sleeping not with one of them but with one or more other employees
arguments against job discrimination
utilitarians: ill effects on total human welfare kantians: failing to resect people as ends in themselves violates basic moral rights and mocks the ideal of human moral equality unjust no respectable arguments in favor
attitudinal evidence of discrimination
women and minorities often find themselves measured by a white male value system evidence of biased attitudes and sexist or racist assumptions also points to significant job discrimination in the workplace as they try to fit into a work world dominated by white men, women and minorities can be disadvantaged by stereotypes, false preconceptions and prejudiced attitudes
intentional discrimination
Treatment of others that is unfair (on the basis of prejudice or stereotype) and on purpose
hostile work environment harassment
behavior of a sexual nature that is distressing to women and interferes with their ability to perform on the job, even when the behavior is not an attempt to pressure the woman for sexual favors sexual innuendos, sexually explicit emails
Sexual harrassment cases legal perspective
courts look at what a reasonable person would find offensive but what matters morally is to respect each person's choices and wishes
Individual discrimination
discrimination carried out by one person against another
how to deal with sexual harassment
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 form supervisors, they should do this immediately. if internal channels are ineffective, employees should seek legal advice
sexual harassment
a form of discrimination may not be the worst aspect of it, morally speaking
Arguments against affirmative action
1.) affirmative action injures white men and infringes on their rights 2.) affirmative action itself violates the principle of equality 3.) nondiscrimination legislation will achieve our social goals, stronger affirmative action is unnecessary
Arguments for affirmative action
1.) compensatory justice demands affirmative action programs 2.) Affirmative action is necessary to permit fairer competition 3.) affirmative action is necessary to break the cycle that keeps minorities and women locked into low-paying, low-prestige jobs
affirmative action
A policy designed to redress past discrimination against women and minority groups through measures to improve their economic and educational opportunities Brown V Board of Education the civil rights act of 1964 forbids discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color sex, religion or national origin employment practices that involve disparate treatment or disparate impact can violate the law subsequent legislation also forbids discrimination based on age or disability
quid pro quo harassment
Type of sexual harassment that occurs when an employee is forced to choose between giving in to a superior's sexual demands and forfeiting an economic benefit such as a pay increase, a promotion, or continued employment. occurs when a supervisor makes an employee's employment opportunities conditional and the employee's entering into a sexual relationship with, or granting sexual favors to, the supervisor
disparate impact
a condition in which employment practices are seemingly neutral yet disproportionately exclude a protected group from employment opportunities
Supreme Court on Affirmative Action
in a series of complex ruling s 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-related 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
Case Study: Notre Dame Coaches
larger percentage of whites in administrative positions
Responses to discrimination
laws guaranteeing equality of opportunity affirmative action
affirmative action programs
most large corporations find that diversity helps their bottom line aim to correct racial imbalances existing as a result of past discrimination today, many companies believe that they benefit from affirmative action by becoming more diverse critics charge that in practice affirmative action has often meant preferential treatment of women and minorities and even reverse discrimination against white men
job discrimination
occurs when: 1.) an employment decisions in some way harms or disadvantages an employee or a job applicant; 2.) the decision is based on the person's membership to a certain group rather than on individual merit; and 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
pink collar occupations
relatively low-paying, non manual, semiskilled positions primarily held by women librarians, secretaries
discrimination statistics
studies reveal the persistence of discrimination in the US and statistical evidence shows wide economic disparities between whites and racial minorities it also shows significant occupational and income differences between white males, on the one hand, and women and minorities, on the other
institutional discrimination
the denial of opportunities and equal rights to individuals and groups that results from the normal operations of a society
Comparable worth
the idea that women and men should be paid on the same scale for doing different jobs if they involve equivalent skill, effort and responsibility. 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 hey receive equal pay for doing jobs of equal worth opponents insist women have freely chosen lower paying jobs