Discrimination in the Workplace Case Analysis - Term Paper Example

of the Discrimination Case Introduction The practice of discriminating individuals on basis of gender for promotion, salary benefits, compensation and employment benefits is known as gender or sexual discrimination. Gender discrimination is very common in workplace and it mainly affects working women. Although there instances where men have also been subjected to gender discrimination, the majority of the victims of gender discrimination are women (Christofides & Swidinsky, 34). These women are frequently discriminated by their employers. Since the last five decades, several court ruling and feminist movements had concentrated on elimination of gender discrimination at workplace. This type of discrimination is commonly found in the process of recruiting new employees. Reskin (319) suggests that “even a slight difference in qualifications between male and female candidate can lead to gender discrimination”. This paper has selected a case of gender discrimination and it will be analyzed in the lights of broad and diverse academic resources. Overview From research, it is evident that gender discrimination exists in workplace at all levels. In the process of recruiting, even a minor difference between the qualification of male and female applicant can lead to gender discrimination. In such an event, the possibility of female applicant to get the job is low as compared to the male applicant (Christofides & Swidinsky, 36). There is also a possibility that a vast difference in qualifications between the male and female applicant can also lead to discrimination. For instance, a female applicant, having a master’s degree in business administration maybe rejected because the company wants to hire a male applicant with only a bachelor degree. Another type of gender discrimination is sexual harassment. Even today, the western society views women as commodities and assets. Women are viewed as the weaker sex and frequently, seen as sexual objects. Research suggests that more than seventy percent of the working women experience sexual harassment in one form another (Reskin, 320). Odem (205)- conducted a study in order to analyze women and gender discrimination. More than five hundred working females were interviewed. From the study, it was found out that more than eighty percent of the women have been discriminated on basis of their gender in form or another. Sexual harassment concentrates on using words, sentences and actions, which are sexual in nature (Odem, 215). In such a case, the employee benefits, salary increment or promotion is halted until and unless he or she gives sexual favors to the employer ( Bhattacharjee, 45). In other instances, male employee or group of male employees can create a aggressive, unwelcoming and unpleasant atmosphere for the female employee by passing sexual comments, vulgar noises, sexual assaults and other actions in order to threaten her job (Carnes, 119). Although several laws have been enacted by the federal government to ban and control gender discrimination, yet it still persists in the American society. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 openly condemns gender discrimination and other forms of discrimination. “The law was passed after heated debate in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. It stated that it was unlawful for an employer to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges or employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Bohmer, 317). Case Study This paper has selected the case study of gender discrimination in workplace. The case study is of a lady, who has obtained her degree in masters in business administration. She has about eight years experience in her field. She has been working for MAC Properties Company as an Assistant Property Manager for the last two years. In should be noted that the designation for which she had chosen was Property Manager. However, the job was given to the male employee, who only had a bachelor’s degree in commerce and had ten years of working experience in the field. The male applicant did not fit into the senior position and he did not have the necessary qualifications. The female applicant believes that she is the right candidate for the promotion because she has eight years of experience in real property business. At the same time, she is a certified real property administrator, which she had gotten from RPA (Real Property Administrator) (Schleef, 69). The male candidate does not have this certificate, which further proves that he does not deserve the senior position. She believes that she has become a victim of gender discrimination and hence, for this purpose, she has hired a lawyer. She feels that she has been mistreated and that she deserved the senior position. Workplace discrimination on basis of gender is considered to be unethical and unprofessional. As mentioned earlier, this practice is still prevalent in the American society. The parties involved include the female applicant, MAC properties consultants and the male candidate. Employee Perspective From the female candidate perspective, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, gives her full rights to be employed for the position of Property Manager because she has the necessary qualifications as well as the experience as compared to the male candidate (Bohmer, 320). According to her perspective, the employer has selected the male candidate as he promotes male employees. Giving the junior position to the female applicant demonstrates that the females are kept in level below position. The law strictly condemns that employers cannot restrict or segregate the applicants on basis of gender in order to limit their chances for the position they have applied for. The lady has a strong case because she comes under the category, which is protected. Furthermore, the action of the employer created a negative impact on the employees job and thus, the defendant must now proved that he selected the male candidate because he believed he was the right candidate for the job. If the employer fails to prove this, then it would be proven easily that the employee had become the target of gender discrimination. The female candidate is considered to be the better candidate because she has been with the company for a longer time. She is familiar with the policies and here an RPA certificate distinguishes her from the male candidate. The position of the Property Manager requires an RPA certificate and therefore, she is the right candidate for the position. She asserts that the Civil Rights Act states that “employers cannot limit or segregate employees based on sex in any way that would adversely affect their chances at promotions. It does allow for two narrow exceptions to the law—businesses may use a "bona fide" seniority or merit system and measure performance and earnings based on a quantity or quality measuring system, and employers may use ability tests to determine the most qualified candidates for a job as long as the test does not discriminate by gender in any way” (Aylward, 105). Employer’s Perspective: From the employer’s perspective, the male candidate has been selected for the position because he believes that he has more experience than the female applicant. As for the RPA certification, the male candidate has applied for it, which would be given to him in a very short time. Furthermore, he asserts that the system has been based on merit. The male candidate is more familiar with the company’s policies as compared to the female candidate. At the same time, he has obtained the necessary technical training in the property field. Employer further asserts that he has followed the merit system, which is according to the Civil Rights Act. He asserts that the merit system has been designed to measure the performance of the employees. Based on the performance, the male candidate is more eligible for the position as compared to be the female candidate. Based on the experience and performance, the company had selected the male applicant (Banton, 205). Employee’s Defense From the female employee perspective, the position had not been given to her because she is a woman. She presented that her performance was better than the male counterpart. She presented the necessary awards and recommendations letters of her previous employers. Furthermore, she asserted that she has been a victim of gender discrimination because she was a woman (Brook, 189). Her previous awards, recommendation letters, experience and qualifications make her ideal for the position. Furthermore, she has an RPA certificate. She believes that giving the position to the male candidate on basis of performance is an incorrect assumption. Verdict Based on the data compiled, the female candidate has the necessary qualifications and experience and the evidence to prove that she is the ideal candidate for the position of Property Manager. This position requires RPA certificate, which the male candidate does not have. Thus, this is a clear case of gender discrimination. From previous records, the female candidate is the suitable candidate for the position and she has been discriminated by the employer. To give the position solely on performance is not a justified decision and therefore, the court verdict is that the employer has practiced gender discrimination. Conclusion The aim of this paper was to select a case study in which an employee had experienced gender discrimination. The case selected in this paper was that of a female employee, who had been discriminated by the employer. She was the right candidate for the designation but the employer had given the position to the male employee on basis of performance. The slight difference in qualification cannot be used in order to discriminate between the male and female employee. The case had been in the favor of the female candidate. The lady has a strong case because she comes under the category, which is protected. Furthermore, the action of the employer created a negative impact on the employees job and thus, the defendant must now proved that he selected the male candidate because he believed he was the right candidate for the job. If the employer fails to prove this, then it would be proven easily that the employee had become the target of gender discrimination. Work Cited Christofides L.N. and R. Swidinsky. (1994). “Wage determination by gender and visible minority status: Evidence from the 1989 LMAS”, Canadian Public Policy, Vol. 20, No. 1, 34-51 Reskin, B. (2000). “The proximate causes of employment discrimination”, Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 2, 319-328 Odem, Mary E.;; Clay-Warner, Jody (1998). Confronting rape and sexual assault. Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources. p. xiv Bohmer, Carol (1991). "Acquaintance rape and the law". In Parrot, Andrea; Bechhofer, Laurie. Acquaintance rape: the hidden crime. New York: Wiley. pp. 317–333 Debra Schleef. (2001) Thinking like a lawyer: Gender differences in the production of professional knowledge. Gender Issues 19:2, 69-86 Carol A. Aylward (1999), Canadian Critical Race Theory: Racism and the Law. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Banton, Michael P. Discrimination. Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2004 Brooks, Roy L., ed. When Sorry Isnt Enough: The Controversy over Apologies and Reparations for Human Injustice. New York: New York University Press, 1999 Bhattacharjee, Y. (2007). GENDER EQUITY: U.S. Agencies Quiz Universities on the Status of Women in Science. Science, 315(5820), 1776. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from http://www.sciencemag.org. Carnes, M. (2006). Gender: macho language and other deterrents. Nature, 442(7105), 868. Read More