The Ethics of Job Discrimination - Essay Example

The Ethics of Job Discrimination The Federal appeals court in San Francisco asserted that a plaintiff could rely on both direct and indirect evidences of discrimination by the employer. (Noyes v. Kelly Services) and this was done because the court felt that the trial court imposed a heavier burden on plaintiff. Unlawful discrimination at work place, due to race, color, culture, religion, is prohibited and made illegal in US now. In case of employer’s action being challenged under those laws, the employer can show legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for his decision and thus, he could win even if the decision is an unfair one.

US Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit applied US Supreme Court’s opinion (Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Inc. and McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green) that “The plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Once the plaintiff has met the minimal burden of establishing a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the defendant to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the proffered reason was pretextual and that the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff” http://findarticles.

com/p/articles/mi_qn4180/is_20010620/ai_n10066999So, in the above case, initially it is the burden of the employees to show that they had been discriminated by Texaco and later, burden of proof lies with the employer to demonstrate justifiable nondiscriminatory reasons supported by statistics that the decision was not influenced by discrimination (Zimmermann v. Associates First Capital Corporation). In 1973, the case of McDowell Douglas Corporation v. Green the Supreme Court established the burden of proof (Title VII) as a model by opining: Plaintiff carries the initial burden establishing that he/she belongs to a protected group, is qualified for the job, and was rejected while post remained vacant, and then burden shifts to employer to justify himself (St.

Mary’s Honor Society v. Hicks). In the above case, the employees have additional proof of the recorded conversation and employer has very little chance of winning. 2: “The main utilitarian argument put forward in favor of preferential treatment is that it is the only way to interrupt a cycle of disadvantage for underprivileged groups” Sadurski (1985, p.190). This depends on the deprivation suffered by certain groups and how they could join the mainstream by educating and training them in a preferential way.

According to this theory, a traditionally underprivileged group has to be given preferential treatment, so that it could reach the equality level faster, because the utilitarian term is connected with equality by breaking the vicious circle of disadvantage (Hopwood v. Texas). “According to the Kantian argument, discrimination is wrong because it treats people, not as ends, but as means to whatever social purposes the discrimination is supposed to serve” http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/bizeth/objover7.

htmIf it is morally wrong on utilitarian grounds, Kantians call it a ‘nonuniversalizable’ practice (Regents of University of California v. Bukke). Justice should be distributive, traditional and should also be radical depending on the circumstances. “John Rawls argues that the Principle is a fundamental principle of distributive justice such as everyone would choose from "behind the veil of ignorance": consequently, discrimination is unjust” http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/bizeth/objover7.

htmIt also invokes the fundamental principle that “Individuals who are equal in all respects relevant to the kind of treatment in question should be treated equally” (Ibid) and discrimination violates this principle and hence unjust (Richmond v. J.A.Corson Co). Different approaches have the common classification that discrimination is unjust and the common desire that should be remedied by society, government and justice. BIBLIOGRAPHY:1. Sadurski, Wojciech (1985), Giving Desert its due: Social justice and Legal theory, Academic Publishers, Boston. 2. The Ethics of Job Discrimination,ONLINE SOURCES: 1.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4180/is_20010620/ai_n100669992.