Job Discrimination

Overview
(1) The meaning and forms of job discrimination. (2) Statistical and attitudinal evidence of discrimination. (3) Historical and legal context of affirmative action. (4) Moral arguments for and against affirmative action. (5) Doctrine of comparable worth and controversy. (6) The problem of sexual harassment.

Introduction
Job discrimination has many variations. Affirmative action has been one proposed remedy for past discrimination. What moral arguments exist for and against discrimination? What are the obligations of employers toward their employees regarding discrimination issues?

Meaning of Job Discrimination

Definition: Job discrimination occurs when: (1)An employment decision in some way harms or disadvantages an employee or a job applicant. (2)The decision is based on membership in a certain group, rather than on individual merit. (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.

Meaning of Job Discrimination

Forms of discrimination: Discrimination can be individual or institutional, intentional or unwitting. Arguments against discrimination: It involves false assumptions about a group and harms its members, so utilitarians would reject it due to its ill effects on overall human welfare. Kantians would repudiate it as failing to respect people as ends in themselves. Discrimination is also unjust.

Evidence of Discrimination
Statistical evidence: Studies reveal the persistence of discrimination in American life. Research shows wide economic disparities between whites and racial minorities. It shows significant occupational and income differences seen in white males as compared to women and minorities. Few women and minorities can be found at the very top of the business world.

Evidence of Discrimination
Attitudinal evidence: Statistics alone do not conclusively establish discrimination other elements may account for the disparities in income and position between men and women and between whites and other races. Widespread racist and sexist attitudes and biased institutional practices and policies come into play. Women and minorities often find themselves measured by a white male value system.

Affirmative Action: The Legal Context

The Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) declared racially segregated schooling as unconstitutional and helped launch the civil rights movement in the U.S. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (later amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972) prohibited all forms of discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin.

Affirmative Action: The Legal Context

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967 and 1978), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) further defined illegal discrimination. By the 1970s, companies contracting with the federal government were required to develop affirmative action programs. They reflected the courts recognition that job discrimination can exist even in the absence of conscious intent to discriminate.

In the Philippines, the Labor Code mandates workplace protections against discrimination based on race, sex or creed but age discrimination is NOT included in the law.

Affirmative Action: The Legal Context

Many companies believe that they benefit from affirmative action by becoming more diverse. Critics say that it has often meant illegal quotas, preferential treatment of women and minorities, or reverse discrimination against white males. Many Americans now oppose affirmative action, and political opposition to it has grown greater than ever, particularly regarding federal programs.

Affirmative Action: The Legal Context

The Supreme Court has adopted a case-by-case approach to affirmative action. Overall a majority of the Court has upheld programs that are moderate and flexible. Race can be taken into account employment decisions, but only as one factor among many. Programs that demand rigid and unreasonable quotas or that impose excessive hardships on present employees are illegal.

Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues

Arguments for affirmative action: (1)Compensatory justice demands affirmative action programs. Point: We have a moral obligation to redress past injuries. Counterpoint: People today cant be expected to atone for the sins of the past and why should todays candidates receive any special consideration?

Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues

Arguments for affirmative action: (2) It is necessary to permit fairer competition. Point: Taking race and sex into account makes job competition fairer by keeping white men from having an undeserved competitive edge. Counterpoint: Employers have the right to seek the best-qualified candidates without trying to make life fair for everybody and disadvantaged whites are also out there.

Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues

Arguments for affirmative action: (3) It is needed to break the cycle of minorities and women locked in low-paying, low-prestige jobs. Point: Even if racism and sexism ended, mere nondiscrimination would need a century or more for blacks and women to equalize their positions. Counterpoint: Affirmative action has its costs making everyone racially conscious and causing resentment and frustration.

Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues

Arguments against affirmative action: (1)It injures white men and violates their rights. Point: Such programs violate the right of white men to be treated as individuals and to have racial or sexual considerations not affect employment decisions. Counterpoint: The interests of white men have to be balanced against societys interest in promoting these programs.

Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues

Arguments against affirmative action: (2) Affirmative action itself violates the principle of equality. Point: If equality is the goal, it must be the means, too. Such programs are based on the same principle that encouraged past discrimination. Counterpoint: We cant wish the reality of discrimination away by pretending the world is colorblind, when it is not.

Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues

Arguments against affirmative action: (3) Nondiscrimination alone will achieve our social goals; stronger affirmative action is unnecessary. Point: The 1964 Civil Rights Act already outlaws job discrimination, many discrimination cases have been won before the EEOC or in court. So we only need to insist on rigorous enforcement of the law. Counterpoint: The absence of vigorous affirmative action programs halts progress.

A recent survey in Asia showed that one in six respondents who were living with HIV/AIDS had been discriminated in the workplace. A higher proportion of respondents experienced workplace discrimination in the Philippines (21 per cent) than in other countries in the region (15 per cent in Indonesia, 12 per cent in India and 7 per cent in Thailand).

In one restaurant, the owner required female employees to wear sexually revealing clothes. Responsively, a local court has overruled this policy and held that the dress requirement imposed on female employees by the restaurant was not necessary.

The governments of the Philippines and Japan recently enacted laws that address sexual harassment as a form of discrimination. The law provides that both women and men shall be protected from sexual harassment, and requires employers to take workplace measures to address it.

Philippines are unable to find solid protection in the cou because sexual orientation is not considered a suspect classby either the court system or the national government.Many Filipinos feel that homosexuality and transgenderism are perversions, mental lapses, or strange lifestyle choices. As such if Filipino LGBTs would happen to sue for their rights, the traditionally conservative Philippine court system would likely mention that: 1) LGBTs are not a suspect class under Philippine law, and 2) the at-will paradigm protects the rights of

Comparable Worth
The meaning of the comparable worth: It says that women and men should be paid on the same scale not only for doing the same or equivalent jobs, but also for doing different jobs involving equal skill, effort, and responsibility.

Comparable Worth
Advocates point to statistics showing that women are in more low-paying jobs than men and that the more women dominate an occupation, the less it pays. Some say monetary reparations (retroactive payment adjustments) are due to for past work. They believe that paying women equally for a job of equal worth is a matter of social justice. Opponents say that women have freely chosen lower-paying occupations.

Sexual Harassment
Definition: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individuals employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individuals work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

Sexual Harassment
Two forms of sexual harassment: (1)Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a supervisor makes an employees job opportunities conditional on the employees entering into a sexual relationship with, or granting sexual favors to, the supervisor. (2)Hostile working environment is behavior of a sexual nature that is distressing to workers (often, but not exclusively, women) and interferes with their ability to perform on the job.

Sexual Harassment
The view of the law courts: In sexual harassment cases, the courts look to what a reasonable person would find offensive. But what matters morally is to respect each persons choices and wishes.

Sexual Harassment
Dealing with sexual harassment: An employee encountering sexual harassment should: (1) Make it clear that the behavior is unwanted. (2) If the behavior persists, document it by keeping a record of what has occurred, who was involved, and when it happened. (3) Complain to the appropriate supervisor. (4) If internal complaints prove ineffective, consider seeing a lawyer and learning in detail what legal options are available.