Business Ethics Reverse Discrimination in the Workplace - Coursework Example

Reverse Discrimination in the Workplace BY YOU YOUR HERE HERE Reverse Discrimination in the Workplace Introduction There are many labor laws that forbid discrimination in the workplace which identify protected class groups that include ethnic minorities, those of advancing age, and females (to name only a few). Discrimination is forbidden by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These employment laws have led to considerable litigation against companies for failing to comply with their language. However, there is a phenomenon referred to as reverse discrimination, which is defined as occurring “when a person is denied an opportunity because of preferences given to protected-class individuals who may be less qualified” (Mathis & Jackson, 2005, p.103). In this situation, it must be proven that the organization where the individual is employed was denied opportunities or received discriminatory actions because a member of a protected class was given preferential treatment. This paper describes situations in the workplace that involve reverse discrimination, with a focus on the legal structure that forbids this from occurring and the ethical issues potentially involved in workplace reverse discrimination scenarios. The Letter of the Law The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits discrimination related to compensation, working conditions, or certain privileges for individuals over the age of 40 that work for employers with 20 or more employees (Mathis & Jackson). It is a federal law, thus it applies to all businesses across the United States fitting the profile of 20 or more employees. A situation occurred where those individuals who were considered a protected class against the ADEA filed suit alleging reverse discrimination based on benefits provisions and early retirement benefits options. At General Dynamics Land Systems, the company decided it would be in the best interest of the business to alter the retiree health care benefits scheme. Full health care benefits were to be provided upon signing the new General Dynamics contract, but only if the individual was 50 years of age or older (Zink, 2006). Workers who were not yet of 50 years of age, thus not in a protected class under the ADEA, filed suit against General Dynamics citing reverse discrimination since they were not to be afforded the full health care benefits due to their younger age profiles. The ADEA explicitly states the following: “It shall be unlawful for an employer – (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, term, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age” (Zink, 2006, p.2). Ultimately, this case was dismissed by the Circuit Court, citing that reverse discrimination was not allowed under the ADEA. However, the younger workers were allowed to pursue their reverse discrimination suit citing other legal precedents. This particular case was chosen for analysis because many organizations, in fear of receiving liability outcomes, will deny opportunities to younger workers in favor of those in an age-related protected class. Though General Dynamics does not necessarily fit this profile, it was necessary to show how the language of the ADEA and similar legislation can be misinterpreted so that younger workers miss out on many workplace opportunities because of how the language is spelled out. Consider the following case that did meet with victory in the court system alleging reverse discrimination, where the business did deny opportunities to a non-protected class in favor of avoiding liability. The New Haven Fire Department had established a proficiency test to determine which firefighter candidates were most qualified to receive promotions. Detailed steps were undertaken to ensure that the tests were unbiased, “including painstaking analyses to ensure the tests were relevant to show whether the applicants were qualified” (Carlson, 2009, p.32). Twenty different firefighters, most of whom were white, were the only group that scored high enough on the tests to guarantee promotional opportunities while those of protected minority classes failed the examinations (Mahony, 2011). The firefighters sued under the grounds of reverse discrimination when the New Haven Fire Department scrapped the examinations on the basis of the final results in which only white employees scored high enough. This case moved all the way to the Supreme Court who found that the business had indeed conducted unethical reverse discrimination and ordered the department to pay the workers $2 million in damages (Mahony). After the ruling, the department reinstated the validity of the test results and actually promoted 14 of the 20 different firefighters who had scored high on the exam, which had been well-crafted for validity. In this particular case, the fire department was highly unethical as it was concerned about its reputation and potential liabilities associated with race-and-hiring laws. As a proactive step, the organization simply decided to make the test results null and void, which denied individuals opportunities in favor of ethnic minority groups. The Supreme Court offered considerable criticism to New Haven for using “raw, racial statistics” as a means to invalidate the test (Mahony, 2011, p.2). Organizations cannot give a protected class more opportunities than majority groups simply out of fear of potential retaliation under the many employment laws that protect their class. Ethics in the Hospital Environment Another reverse discrimination situation occurred in 1998 in Carey v. Mt. Desert Island Hospital where a male vice president of finance was dismissed after a female CEO was hired. Michael Carey had always managed to achieve high rankings for performance, but suddenly this changed after the new female executive was hired. A series of anti-male remarks were overhead by many employees which led to his ultimate discharge from this Maine hospital. The Appeals Court reflects on the female CEO comments overhead during a corporate function: “We live in a patriarchal society, and men skirt their duties toward child raising. And because men have money, power and position, and because they have penises, then this is the type of thing that happens as a result” (cpmy.com, 1998, p.1). A reverse discrimination suit was filed by Carey under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII. Females are protected class workers and the hospital allowed a culture of anti-male leadership to develop in which the female CEO had gained authoritarian dominance, thus being allowed to dismiss Carey for reasons of personal bias. The Broader Ethical Implications Even though businesses need to comply with state and federal-level laws related to protected class rights, it does not give the organizations the right to preserve their own reputation or potential liabilities by denying opportunities to majority group employees. White males are just one example of this majority group. Businesses have an obligation to establish fair and balanced hiring and promotional standards that are based on merit alone and establish the type of testing and auditing procedures necessary to ensure they are providing equal opportunities regardless of their protected class status. When reverse discrimination occurs in the form of denying opportunities to majority members to avoid potential retaliation by ethnic minorities, as one example, it diminishes the competitive advantages the business could achieve. Further, it denigrates those of majority group status who are actually quite talented and deserve to be given compensation or promotional-based opportunities in reward for their knowledge and skills. There is a great deal of literature available today on the merits of ethical leadership and establishing a culture of unity, trust and affiliation. However, situations where businesses allow reverse discrimination to occur simply because of their fear of legal liabilities in highly unethical and illustrates a distorted form of protectionism for the organization. Businesses, essentially, need to walk the walk when it comes to equal opportunities provision. The case of the fire department workplace and the hospital illustrate how businesses fail to meet their ethical obligations in principles, morals and social codes related to employment practices. Conclusion All of the legal terminology designed to protect certain employees is a good idea to avoid bias in hiring and promotion. However, the cases involving the fire department and the Maine hospital reflect how businesses need to establish more effective procedures to ensure that there is a balance of equal opportunities for employees regardless of their class status or level of protection under state and federal law. Good performance and high skills achievement should be the ethical indicator for enhanced benefits and no business should ever protect its own reputational or financial interests based on subjective feelings of potential retaliation from minority groups for good business decision-making. When this occurs, it lessens the potential for high achievers to develop within a business and puts ineffective leadership into executive roles simply due to their race or ethnic backgrounds. Protection under the law is one thing, but denying talent the opportunity to succeed based on perceptions of future action against the law is unacceptable and highly unethical. Whenever this occurs, not only the business suffers, but the whole of society when confidence in business ethics is eroded on the back of cases like those described in this paper. References Carlson, Kristie. (2009). New Ruling on Reverse Discrimination, Collector, 75(3), p.32. Cpmy.com. (1998). High Ranking Male Prevails in Reverse Discrimination Gender Bias Suit, Inside Litigations, November. Retrieved October 24, 2011 from http://www.cpmy.com/files/reversediscrimination.pdf Mahony, Edmund H. (2011). New Haven Firefighters to get $2 Million in Reverse Discrimination Lawsuit, McClatchy Tribune Business News, July 29. Mathis, R. & Jackson, J. (2005). Human Resource Management, 10th ed, Thomson South-Western. Zink, D.L. (2006). Personnel Management Decisions, On the Legal Front, 43(3). Retrieved October 23, 2011 from http://www.siop.org/tip/backissues/Jan06/pdf/Sheridan%20PDFs/433_063to068.pdf Read More