Removal of gender-based cap is one of the key priority for business sector in the United States in support of the ethical behaviour at the national and international level. The activity of the multinational companies is closely observed as to the compliance of the organizations with international human rights standards, where provision of equal opportunities for males and females should be persisted. In the beginning of 2007 Goodyear Tire faced a legal battle initiated by its female employee – Lilly Ledbetter in reference to the violation of the employment legislation as to the provision of equal pay to both sexes (Brake and Grossman, 2007). The applicant succeeded in this battle as well as she was awarded with $3.3 million of compensation including punitive damages (Brake and Grossman, 2007). In turn, the Supreme Court of the United States denied satisfaction of the claim due to the late submission of the case starting from the date of the initial discriminatory pay check (Bader, 2013).
This case with mentioned behaviour of the managers of the company Goodyear as to the provision of equal payment for males and females is just a representation of example of the immoral and unethical behaviour of the management of Goodyear company that decided to provide its employees with sharp difference in wages. The moral duty of the company is to ensure operation of the categorical imperative as it is envisaged under the terms of the ethical theory. Moreover, the managers of the organization did not take any measures in order to reveal inability to ensure provision of equal opportunities, until this information has been revealed by the applicant herself. Limitation of any person in right to have access to equal working opportunities goes to breach of the moral duties of the organization before community. While Goodyear publically announces pursuit of shared values as to the promotion of honesty, integrity and respect, there is no any legal ground to goes in contradiction with these values (Fieser, 2015).
The behaviour of the managers of the organization should be considered through the application of the utilitarian ethical theory. It should be noted that females strive for equal opportunities and rights with males since the end of the nineteenth century. In this respect, it is highly important to keep in mind that gender equality implies that men and women experience observe equal opportunities and benefits in difference spheres of the life. Coming back to the situation with Lilly, it appeared that she held rather limited position. The managers required Lilly to be accountable before them, while different men could not stand with the fact that a female would be higher and stronger. Hence, ethical side of the actions of Goodyear and the applicant should be explained with description of the utilitarianism as the primary ethical standard pertaining to the analysis of the behaviour of the business units. Utilitarianism implies that any person may conduct in unethical way until he or she understands future effects and their impact will bring more positive consequences (Fieser, 2015).
From first side, the managers of Goodyear limited Lilly in her capability to allocate necessary financial resources and continue retiring of finances for pension. Besides, Lilly should have been provided with same attitude as them it is required by the international human rights standards. Goodyear did not pay resources in order to recover full benefits. At the same time, one should look at the fact that Goodyear is an independent organization. This fact shows that neither state body or organization may force to conduct actions that are not favourable for Goodyear. In turn, Goodyear has a legal right to introduce and maintain any bylaws within the premises of the company until it goes in violation with the provisions of the legislation (Fieser, 2015). In the meantime, the Supreme Court of the United States opted out to follow for the protection of the interests of the company, where the legal right of Lilly implies that she had to file the application in right form in protection of the rights and interests of the employees that are present at work (Bader, 2013). While Lilly was not able to meet requirements of the Equal Employment Court, the Supreme Court of the United States had to deny this claim (Bader, 2013).
The case with unethical behaviour of Goodyear has produced several positive results. Among the most influential effects of this case is that it forces employees to notify Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at once they become victims of such behaviour. In turn, the other dimension of the behaviour of the company reveals gaps that should be removed at the national and international level. The companies will gain more benefits for maintenance of its global status and recognition in case the organization acts in preservation of the gender equality (Brake and Grossman, 2007).
In conclusion, the reflection of the utilitarianism with regard to the performance of the company Goodyear only reaffirms that the preservation of the ethical conduct should be in the actions of bother parties of the connection. With that, this case showed to the rest of the companies that in any case this activity will lead to the reduction of the positive environment around the company as well we her branding will be damaged. Hence, it was reasonable to the Supreme Court of the United States to deliver such decision in deprivation of the rights of Lily to use this cheque. In turn, this denial allowed to save resources for other parties. Coming back to Lilly, one should admit that she was ethically wrong and she found out about different payments without any search for th confirmation of this decision. Finally, both employees and managers of the company should act in ethical way.
- Bader. H. (2013). Misconceptions about Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Engage, 13(3), 26-30. Retrieved from http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/misconceptions-about-ledbetter-v-goodyear-tire-rubber-co
- Brake, D. L., & Grossman, J. L. (2007). Title VII’s protection against pay discrimination: The impact of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Regional Labor Review, 10(1), 28-36. Retrieved from http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/colleges/hclas/cld/cld_rlr_fall07_title7_grossman.pdf
- Fieser, J. (2015). Introduction to business ethics [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/