ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my thanks to the School of management studies which gave me such a
beautiful opportunity to study on the topic ETHICS IN JOB DESCRIMINATION.

On the submission of my project report I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Mrs.
Shavina Goyal (Lect. SMS, Punjabi University, Patiala) for helping me and taking active
interest throughout the project. She was always available, correcting mistakes, intelligently
directing me to proper sources of information advising to aim for simplicity, brevity, clarity and
accuracy. I am indeed thankful to her for her valuable guidance.

I would also like to express my thanks to my friends who helped me on every stage. Without
their help the project could not be completed.

Sunil Kumar

1
TABLE OF CONTENT PAGE NO.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION 3

CHAPTER 2

WHAT IS DISCRIMINATION 9

CHATER 3

THE ELEMENTS IN ETHICS OF JOB DISCRIMINATION 13

CHAPTER -4

PRESENT SCENARIO OF ETHICS OF JOB DESCRIMINATION 16

CHAPTER-5

CASE STUDIES ON ETHICS OF JOB DISCRIMINATION 27

2
 CHAPTER -1

INTRODUCTION

3
INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS ETHICS

Ethics refers to a system of moral principles a sense of right and wrong, and goodness and
badness of actions and the motives and consequences of these actions. As applied to business
firms, ethics is the study of good and evils, right and wrong and just and unjust actions of
businessmen. Ethics is a body of principles or standards of human conduct that govern the
behavior of individuals and groups. Ethics arise not simply from man's creation but from human
nature itself making it a natural body of laws from which man's laws follow. Ethics is a branch of
philosophy and is considered a normative science because it is concerned with the norms of
human conduct, as distinguished from formal sciences such as mathematics and logic, physical
sciences such as chemistry and physics, and empirical sciences such as economics and
psychology.

Ethics is seen as an individual’s own personal attitude and a believe concerning what is right or
wrong, good or bad. It is important to note that ethics reside within individuals and that
organization doesn’t have ethics. People have ethics. Consequently, its definition and
understanding varies from person to person. These are not absolute, but are relative. Ethical
behaviors are in the eye of beholder. What is right or wrong is a personal individual matter, but is
still influenced by socially accepted norms. Right, and proper and fair are the ethical terms. It
expresses a judgment about behavior towards people they felt to be just. Ethics are useful tools
for sorting out the good and bad components within complex human interactions. Business ethics
does not differ from generally accepted norms of good or bad practices. If dishonesty is

4
considers to be unethical and immoral in the society, then any business man who is dishonest his
or her employees, customer’s shareholders, or competitors is unethical and immoral person.
Businessmen should not try to evolve their own principles to justify ‘what is right and what is
wrong’. Ethics refers to accepted principles of right or wrong that govern the conduct of a
person, the members of a profession, or the actions of an organization. Business Ethics are the
accepted principles of right or wrong governing the conduct of business people. Ethical decisions
are those that are in accordance with those accepted principles of right and wrong, whereas and
unethical decision in one that violates accepted principles. This is not as straightforward as it
sounds Managers may face ethical dilemmas, which are situations where there is no agreement
over exactly what the accepted principles of right and wrong are, or where none of the available
alternatives seems ethically acceptable

Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address
questions about morality; that is, about concepts like good and bad, right and wrong, justice,
virtue, etc.

“Ethics” refers to the moral values that govern the appropriate conduct of an individual or
group. “Ethics” speaks to how we ought to live, that is, how we ought to treat others and how we
ought to run or manage our own lives.

Simply stated, ethics refers to standards of behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in
the many situations in which they find themselves-as friends, parents, children, citizens,
businesspeople, teachers, professionals, and so on.

5
Ethics refers to a system of moral principles a sense of right and wrong, and goodness and
badness of actions and the motives and consequences of these actions. As applied to business
firms, ethics is the study of good and evils, right and wrong and just and unjust actions of
businessmen. Ethics is a body of principles or standards of human conduct that govern the
behavior of individuals and groups. Ethics arise not simply from man's creation but from human
nature itself making it a natural body of laws from which man's laws follow. Ethics is a branch of
philosophy and is considered a normative science because it is concerned with the norms of
human conduct, as distinguished from formal sciences such as mathematics and logic, physical
sciences such as chemistry and physics, and empirical sciences such as economics and
psychology.
Ethics is seen as an individual’s own personal attitude and a believe concerning what is right or
wrong, good or bad. It is important to note that ethics reside within individuals and that
organization doesn’t have ethics. People have ethics. Consequently, its definition and
understanding varies from person to person. These are not absolute, but are relative. Ethical
behaviors are in the eye of beholder. What is right or wrong is a personal individual matter, but is
still influenced by socially accepted norms. Right, and proper and fair are the ethical terms. It
expresses a judgment about behavior towards people they felt to be just. Ethics are useful tools
for sorting out the good and bad components within complex human interactions. Business ethics
does not differ from generally accepted norms of good or bad practices. If dishonesty is
considers to be unethical and immoral in the society, then any business man who is dishonest his
or her employees, customer’s shareholders, or competitors is unethical and immoral person.
Businessmen should not try to evolve their own principles to justify ‘what is right and what is
wrong’. Ethics refers to accepted principles of right or wrong that govern the conduct of a
person, the members of a profession, or the actions of an organization. Business Ethics are the
accepted principles of right or wrong governing the conduct of business people. Ethical decisions
are those that are in accordance with those accepted principles of right and wrong, whereas and
unethical decision in one that violates accepted principles. This is not as straightforward as it
sounds Managers may face ethical dilemmas, which are situations where there is no agreement
over exactly what the accepted principles of right and wrong are, or where none of the available
alternatives seems ethically acceptable

6
It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT

 Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings provide important information for our ethical
choices. Some people have highly developed habits that make them feel bad when they
do something wrong, but many people feel good even though they are doing something
wrong. And often our feelings will tell us it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is
hard.
 Ethics is not religion. Many people are not religious, but ethics applies to everyone. Most
religions do advocate high ethical standards but sometimes do not address all the types of
problems we face.
 Ethics is not following the law. A good system of law does incorporate many ethical
standards, but law can deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt, as
some totalitarian regimes have made it. Law can be a function of power alone and
designed to serve the interests of narrow groups. Law may have a difficult time designing
or enforcing standards in some important areas, and may be slow to address new
problems.
 Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms. Some cultures are quite ethical, but
others become corrupt -or blind to certain ethical concerns (as the United States was to
slavery before the Civil War). "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not a satisfactory
ethical standard.
 Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help us
make better ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do.
Science may provide an explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides
reasons for how humans ought to act. And just because something is scientifically or
technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it.

7
THE MAJOR PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS ETHICS

 No discrimination should be done on the basis of caste ,color , and religion,

 The polices should be fair and transparent
 Proper provision of safety should be provided by the company to the employees.
 There should be proper honesty, loyalty, and integrity in the employees.
 The company’s resources should not be utilized by the employees for their personal
usage.
 Company should provide better environment condition Information about employee’s
personal lives, health, and work evaluations should be kept confidential.
 Regular measurement of employee satisfaction should by company.
 To neither give nor take any illegal payment, remuneration, gift, donation, or
comparable, benefits to obtain business or favors.
 To comply with all regulations regarding preservation of the environment.
 Employee should report to management any actual or possible violation of code or an
event that could affect the business or reputation of the employee’s company.

8
 CHAPTER-2

WHAT IS DISCRIMINATION?

9
What is discrimination?

Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the treatment taken toward or against a person
of a certain group that is taken in consideration based on class or category. The United Nations
explains: "Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of
exclusion or rejection." Discriminatory laws such as redlining have existed in many countries. In
some countries, controversial attempts such as racial quotas have been used to redress negative
effects of discrimination.

Term discriminate is refers to distinguish one object from another, that is a morally neutral and
not necessary wrongful activities. However, in modern usage, that term is not morally neutral; it
is usually intended to refer to the wrongful act of distinguishing illicitly among people not on the
basis of individual merit, but on the basis of prejudice or some other invidious or morally
reprehensible attitude.

Discrimination in employment must involve three basis elements, there are:

 It is a decision against one or ore employees that is not based on individual merit, such as
the ability to perform the job.
 The decision derives solely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, false stereotype, or
some other kind of morally wrong.
 The decision (set of decision) has negative impact on the interests of the employees, such
as it can cause loss the job.

There are forms of discrimination

 A discrimination act may be part of the isolated behavior of a single individual who
intentionally and knowingly discriminates out of prejudice.
 A discrimination act may be part of the routine behavior of an institutionalized group,
which intentionally and knowingly discriminates out of the personal prejudice of its
members.

10
  A discrimination act may be part of the isolated behavior of a single individual who
unintentionally and unknowingly discriminates against someone because the individual
unthinkingly adopts the traditional practice and stereotype of the surrounding society.
 A discrimination act may be part of the systematic routine of a corporate organization or
group that unintentionally incorporate into its formal institutionalized procedures
practices that discriminate against woman or minorities.
 We can estimate whether an institution or a set of institution is practicing discrimination
against a certain group by looking at statistical indicators of how the members of that
group are distributed within the institution. A prima facie indication of discrimination
exists when a disproportionate number of members of a certain group hold the less
desirable position within the institutions despite their preferences and abilities.

There are three kinds of comparisons can provide evidence for such a distribution

 Comparisons of the average benefits the institutions bestow on the discriminated group
with the average benefit the institutions bestow on other groups.
 Comparisons of the proportion of the discriminated group found in the lowest levels of
the institutions with the proportion of other groups found at those levels.
 Comparisons of the proportions of that group that holds the more advantageous positions
with the proportions of other groups that hold those same positions.

There are the arguments mustered against discrimination generally fall into three groups:

 Utilitarian arguments, which claim that discrimination leads to an inefficient use of

human resource.
 Rights arguments, which claim that discrimination violates basic human rights.
 Justice arguments, which claim that discrimination results in an unjust distribution of
society’s benefit and burdens.

Today, many businesses have done the affirmative action, which can reduce the effects of past
discrimination. This action is designed to achieve a more representative distribution of minorities

11
within the firm by giving preference to minorities. Moreover, this action is legally required in
employment.

Valuing and managing a diverse work force is more than ethically and morally correct. It’s also a
business necessity. Work force demographics for the next decade make it absolutely clear that
companies which fail to do an excellent job of recruiting, retaining, developing, and promoting
the women and minorities simply will be unable to meet their staffing needs.

12
 CHAPTER-3

THE ELEMENTS IN ETHICS

OF JOB DISCRIMINATION

13
The elements in Ethics of Job Discrimination

The discrimination in employment must involve three basic elements.

 First, it is a decision against one or more employees that is not base on individual merit,
such as the ability to perform a given job, seniority, or other morally legitimate
qualifications.
 Second, the decision derives sorely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, false
stereotypes, or some other kind of morally unjustified attitude against members of the
class to which the employee belongs.
 Third, the decision (or set of decisions) has a harmful or negative impact on the interest
of the employees, perhaps costing them jobs, promotions, or better pay.

Discrimination: Utility, Right, and Justice.

Utility

The standard utilitarian argument against racial and sexual discrimination is based on the idea
that a society’s productivity will be optimized to the extent that jobs are awarded on the basis of
competency (or merit).

Discriminating among job applicants on the basis of race, sex, religion or other characteristics
unrelated to job performance is necessarily inefficient and, therefore contrary to utilitarian
principles.

Right

No utilitarian arguments against racial and sexual discrimination may take the approach that
discrimination is wrong because it violates a person’s basic moral rights. Kantian theory, for
example, holds that human being should be treated as ends and never used merely as means. At
minimum, this principle means that each individual has a moral right to be treated as a free
person equal to any other person and that all individuals have a correlative moral duty to treat
each individual as a free and equal person.

14
Justice

A second group of no utilitarian arguments against discrimination views it as a violation of the

principle of justice. John Rawls argued that among the principles of justice that the enlightened
parties to the “original position” would choose for themselves is the principle of equal
opportunity. “ Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are attached to
offices and position open to all under condition of fair equality of opportunity. Discrimination
violates this principle by arbitrarily closing off to minorities the more desirables offices and
position in an institution, thereby not giving them an opportunity equal to that of others.
Arbitrarily giving some individuals less of an opportunity to compete for jobs than others is
unjust, according to Rawls.

Affirmative Action Program

Affirmative action programs designed to achieve a more representative distribution of minorities

and women within the firm by giving preference to women and minorities. Affirmative action
programs, in fact, are now legally required of all firms that hold a government contract. The
heart of an affirmative action program is a detailed study of all the major job classifications in
the firm.

Affirmative Action as Compensation

Arguments that defend affirmative action as a form of compensation are based on the concept of
compensatory justice. Compensatory justice implies that people have an obligation to
compensate those whom they have intentionally and unjustly wronged. Affirmative action
programs are then interpreted as a form of reparation by which White male majorities now
compensate women and minorities for unjustly injuring them by discriminating against them in
the past.

The difficulty with arguments that defend affirmative action on the basis of the principle of
compensation is that the principle requires that compensation should come only from those
specific individuals who intentionally inflicted a wrong, and it requires them to compensate only
those specific individuals whom they wronged.

15
 CHAPTER -4

PRESENT SCENARIO OF ETHICS

OF JOB DESCRIMINATION

16
NATURE OF JOB DISCRIMINATION

We often find people debating on these words “justice,” “equality,” “racism,” “rights,” and
“discrimination”. Till now we have discussed in depth the words “justice,” “equality” and
“rights”. In this lecture we will discuss about “racism” and “discrimination”. Lets understand
what is the hue and cry all about.

First of all lets understand the meaning of these words: Racism: the prejudice that members of
one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races or, Discriminatory or abusive
behavior towards members of another race.

Discrimination: The root meaning of the term “discriminate” is “to distinguish one ob-ject from
another,” a morally neutral and not necessarily wrongful activity. However, in modern usage the
term is not morally neutral. It is usually in-tended to refer to the wrongful act of distinguishing
illicitly among people not on the basis of individual merit but on the basis of prejudice or some
other invidious or morally reprehensible attitude. This morally charged notion of “invidious”
discrimination, as it applies to employment, is what is at issue in this chapter. In this sense to
discriminate in employment is to make an adverse decision (or set of decisions) against
employees (or prospective employees) who belong to a certain class because of morally
unjustified prejudice toward members of that class. Discrimination in employment thus, must
involve three basic elements:

1. First, it is a decision against one or more employees (or prospective employees) that is
not based on individual merit such as the ability to perform a given job, seniority, or other
morally legitimate qualifications.

2. Second, the decision derives solely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, from
false stereotypes, or from some other kind of morally unjustified attitude against members of the
class to which the employee belongs.

3. Third, the decision (or set of decisions) has a harmful or negative impact on the
interests of the employees, perhaps costing them jobs, promotions, or better pay.

17
Types of discrimination

• Racism

• On the basis of Gender

• On the basis of Age

• On the basis of Religion

• On the basis of disability

• On the basis of National origin.

Present Scenario of Job Discrimination

Although many more women and minorities are entering formerly male dominated jobs, they
still face problems that they would characterize as form of discrimination. In 1993, for example,
ABC sent a male and female, Avnish and Neelam, on an “experiment” to apply in person for
jobs several companies were advertising. Avnish and Neelam were both trim, neatly dressed
college graduates in their 20s, with identical resumes indicating management experience.
Unknown to the companies, however, both were secretly wired for sound and had hidden
cameras. One company indicated in its help-wanted ad that it had several open positions. But
when the company recruiter spoke with Neelam, the only job he brought up was a job answering
phones. A few minutes later, the same recruiter spoke with Avnish. He was offered a
management job. When interviewed afterwards by ABC, the company recruiter indicated that he
would never want a man answering his phone. Another company had advertised positions as
territory managers for lawn-care services. The owner of that company gave Neelam a typing test,
discussed her fiance’s business with her, and then offered her a job as a receptionist at $6 an
hour. When the owner interviewed Avnish, however, he gave him an aptitude test, chatted with
him about how he kept fit, and offered him a job as territory manager paying $300 to $500 a
week. When the owner was later interviewed by ABC he comments that women “do not do well
as territory managers, which involves some physical labor.” According to the owner he had also
hired one other woman as a receptionist and had hired several other males as territory managers.

18
The experience of young Avnish and Neelam suggest that sexual discrimination is alive and
well. Similar experiments suggest that racial discrimination also continues to thrive. In 1993
researchers at the Urban Institute published a study in which they paired several young black
men with similar young white men, matching them in openness, energy level, articulateness,
physical characteristics, clothing, and job experience. In the same way, young Hispanic males
fluent in English were matched with young Anglo males. Each member of each pair was trained
and coached in mock interviews to act exactly like the other. Each member of each pair then
applied in person for the same jobs, ranging from general laborer to management trainee in
manufacturing, hotels, restaurants, retail sales, and office work. In spite of the fact that all were
equally qualified for the same jobs, blacks and Hispanics were offered jobs 50 percent fewer
times than the young white males. The root meaning of the term “discriminate” is “to distinguish
one object from another,” a morally neutral and not necessarily wrongful activity. However, in
modem usage the term is not morally neutral: It is usually in-tended to refer to the wrongful act
of distinguishing illicitly among people not on the basis of individual merit but on the basis of
prejudice or some other invidious or morally reprehensible attitude. This morally charged notion
of “invidious” discrimination, as it applies to employment, is what is at issue in this chapter. In
this sense to discriminate in employment is to make an ad-verse decision (or set of decisions)
against employees (or prospective employees) who belong to a certain class because of morally
unjustified prejudice toward members of that class.

Discrimination in employment thus, must involve three basic elements. First, it is a decision
against one or more employees (or prospective employees) that is not based on individual merit
such as the ability to perform a given job, seniority, or other morally legiti-mate qualifications.
Second, the decision derives solely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, from false
stereotypes, or from some other kind of morally unjustified attitude against members of the class
to which the employee belongs. Third, the decision (or set of decisions) has a harmful or
negative impact on the interests of the employees, perhaps costing them jobs, promotions, or
better pay.

19
Forms of Discrimination:

Intentional and Institutional Aspects

A helpful framework for analyzing different forms of discrimination can be constructed by

distinguishing the extent to which a discriminatory act is intentional and isolated (or non
institutionalized) and the extent to which it is un-intentional and institutionalized

1. Isolated and Intentional Discrimination

A discriminatory act may be part of the isolated (non institutionalized) behavior of a single
individual who intentionally and knowingly discriminates out of personal prejudice. In the ABC
“experiment” described, for example, the attitudes that the male interviewer is de-scribed as
having may not be characteristic of other company interviewers: His behavior toward female job
seekers may be an intentional but isolated instance of sexism in hiring.

2. Institutionalized and Intentional Discrimination Second,

a discriminatory act may be part of the routine behavior of an institutionalized group, which
intentionally and knowingly discriminates out of the personal prejudices of its members. The Ku
Klux Klan, for example, is an organization that historically has intentionally institutionalized
discriminatory behavior, and, in India, for example, The Muthut Finance group prefers Keralites
for any post in their company.

3. Isolated and Unintentional Discrimination

Third, an act of discrimination may be part of the isolated (non institutionalized) behavior of a
single individual who unintentionally and unknowingly discriminates against someone because
he or she unthinkingly adopts the traditional practices and stereotypes of his or her so-ciety. If
the interviewer quoted in the ABC experiment described, for example, acted unintentionally,
then he would fall into this third category.

4. Institutionalized and Unintentional discrimination

Fourth, a discriminatory act may be part of the systematic routine of a corporate organization or
group that unintentionally incorporates into its formal institutionalized procedures practices that

20
discriminate against women or minorities. The two companies examined in the ABC;
experiment, for example, described organizations in which the best-paying jobs are routinely
assigned to men and the worst-paying jobs are routinely assigned to women, on the stereotypical
assumption that women are fit for some jobs and not for others. There may be no deliberate
intent to discriminate, but the effect is the same: a racially or sexually based pattern of preference
toward white males. Historically, there has been a shift in emphasis from seeing discrimination
primarily as an intentional and individual matter, to seeing it as a systematic and not necessarily
intentional feature of institutionalized corporate behavior, and back again, in some quarters, to
seeing it as an intentional and individual matter. During the early 1960s, employment
discrimination was seen primarily as an intentional, calculated act performed by one individual
on another. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, seems to have had this notion
of discrimination in mind when it stated: It shall be an unlawful employment practice 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, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

2. To limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way
that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect his status as an employee because of such individual’s race, color, sex, or
national origin However, in the late 1960s, the concept of discrimination was enlarged to include
more than the traditionally recognized intentional forms of individual discrimination. By the
early 1970, the term “discrimination” was being used regularly to include disparities of minority
representation within the ranks of a firm, regardless of whether or not the disparity had been
intentionally created. An organization was engaged in discrimination if minority group
representation within its ranks was not proportionate to the group’s local availability. The
discrimination would be remedied when the proportions of minorities within the organization
were made to match their proportions in the available workforce by the use of “affirmative
action” programs.

21
Job discrimination based on race and gender

How do we estimate whether an institution or a set of institutions is practic-ing discrimination

against a certain group?

By looking at statistical indicators of how the members of that group are distributed within the
institution. A prima facie indication of discrimination exists when a disproportionate num-ber of
the members of a certain group hold the less desirable positions within the institutions in spite of
their preferences and abilities.

Three kinds of comparisons can provide evidence for such a distribution:

1. Comparisons of the average benefits the institutions bestow on the discriminated group
with the average benefits the institutions bestow on other groups;

2. Comparisons of the proportion of the discriminated group found in the lowest levels of
the institutions with the proportions of other groups found at those levels;

3. Comparisons of the proportions of that group that hold the more advantageous
positions with the proportions of other groups that hold those same positions. If we look at
American society in terms of these three kinds of comparisons, it becomes clear that some form
of racial and sexual discrimination is present in American society as a whole. It is also clear that
for some segments of the minority population (such as young college-educated black males)
discrimination is not as intense as it once was. Average Income Comparisons Income
comparisons provide the most suggestive indicators of discrimination. If we compare the average
incomes of nonwhite American families, for example, with the average incomes of white
American families, we see that white family incomes are substantially above those of nonwhites.
Contrary to a commonly held belief, the income gap between whites and minorities has been
increasing rather than decreasing.

Since 1970, in fact, even during periods when the real incomes of whites have gone up, real
minority incomes have not kept up. In 1970 the average income for a black family was 65
percent of a white family’s average income; in 1994 the black family’s in- come was 63 percent
of the white family’s income. Income comparisons also reveal large inequalities based on sex. A
comparison of average incomes for men and women shows that women receive only a portion of

22
what men receive. A recent study found, in fact, that firms employing mostly men paid their
workers on average 40% more than those employing mostly women.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports.

The evidence of racial and sexual discrimination provided by the quantitative measures cited can
be filled out qualitatively by examining the occupational distribution of racial and sexual
minorities. As the figures suggests, larger percentages of white males move into the higher
paying occupations, while minorities and women end up in those that are less desirable.
Consequently, although many white women have moved into middle-management positions in
recent years, neither they nor minorities have yet been al-lowed into the top-paying senior
management and top executive positions. Just as the most desirable occupations are held by
whites, while the less desirable are held by blacks, so also the most well paying occupations tend
to be reserved for men, and the remainder for women. The following table illustrates the
disparities. Studies indicate that despite two decades of women entering the workforce in record
numbers, women managers still are not being promoted from middle-management positions into
senior or top-management posts be-cause they encounter an impenetrable “glass ceiling” through
which they may look but not enter. It is some-times suggested that women choose to work in
those jobs that have relatively low pay and low prestige. It is suggested sometimes, for example,
that women believe that only certain jobs (such as secretary or kindergarten teacher) are
“appropriate” for women; that many women choose courses of study that suit them only for such
jobs; that many women choose those jobs because they plan to raise children and these jobs are
relatively easy to leave and re-enter; that many women choose these jobs because they have
limited demands and allow them time to raise children; that many women defer to the demands
of their husbands’ careers and choose to forgo developing their own careers. Al-though choice
plays some role in pay differentials, however, researchers who have studied the differences in
earnings between men and women have all concluded that wage differentials cannot be
accounted for simply on the basis of such factors.

One study found that only half of the earnings gap might be ac-counted for by women’s choices
while other studies have found it could ac-count for a bit more or a bit less. All studies, however,
have demonstrated that only a portion of the gap can be accounted for on the basis of male and
female differences in education, work experience, work continuity, self-imposed work

23
restrictions, and absenteeism. These studies show that even after taking such differences into
account, a gap between the earnings of men and women remains that can only be accounted for
by discrimination in the labor market. A report of the National Academy of Sciences concluded,
“about 35 to 40 percent of the disparity in average earnings is due to sex seg-regation because
women are essentially steered into lower-paying ‘women’s jobs.’ Some studies have shown that
perhaps only one tenth of the wage differences between men and women can be accounted for by
differences in their “personalities and tastes.” Similar studies have shown that half of the
earnings differences between white and minority workers cannot be accounted for by differences
of work history, of on the job training, of absenteeism, nor of self-imposed restrictions on work
hours and 10cation. To make matters worse, several unexpected trends that emerged in the early
nineties and that will be with us until the end of the century promise to increase the difficulties
facing women and minorities. A major study of economic and population trends during the
nineties concluded that the 1990s would be characterized by the following

First, most new workers entering the labor force during the 1990s will not be white
males, but women and minorities. Although a generation ago white males held the largest share
of the job market, between 1985 and the year 2000 white males will comprise only 15 percent of
all new workers entering the labor force. Women and minorities will take their place. Three
fifths of all new entrants coming into business between 1985 and 2000 will be women, a trend
created by sheer economic necessity as well as cultural redefinitions of the role of women. By
the year 2000, about 47 percent of the workforce will be women, and 61 percent of all American
women will be employed. Native minorities and immigrants will make up 42 percent of all new
workers during this decade.

Second, this large influx Second, this large influx of women and minorities will
encounter major difficulties if current trends do not change. First, as we saw, a sizable proportion
of women are still concentrated in traditionally female jobs that pay less than traditionally male
jobs. Second, at the present time women encounter bar-riers (the so-called “glass ceiling”) when
attempting to advance into top -paying top management positions.

The large numbers of minorities entering the workforce will also en-counter significant
disadvantages if current trends do not change. As these large waves of minorities hit the labor
market, they will find that most of the new good jobs awaiting them require extremely high

24
levels of skill and education that they do not have. Of all the new jobs that will be created
between now and the year 2000, more than half will require some education beyond high school
and almost a third will require a college degree. Among the fastest-growing fields will be
professions with extremely high education requirements, such as technicians, engineers, social
scientists, lawyers, mathematicians, scientists, and health professionals; while those fields that
will actually see declines in numbers consist of jobs that require relatively low levels of
education and skills, such as machine tenders and operators, blue collar supervisors, assemblers,
hand workers, miners, and farmers. Even those new jobs that require relatively less skills will
have tough requirements: Secretaries, clerks, and cashiers will need the ability to read and write
clearly, to understand directions, and to use computers; assembly-line work-ers are already being
required to learn statistical process control methods employing basic algebra and statistics. The
new jobs waiting for minorities will thus demand more education and higher levels of language,
math, and reasoning skills.

Unfortunately, although a significant proportion of whites are education-ally disadvantaged,

minorities are currently the least advantaged in terms of skill levels and education. Studies have
shown that only about three fifths of whites, two fifths of Hispanics, and one quarter of blacks
could find information in a news article or almanac; only 25 percent of whites, 7 percent of
Hispanics, and 3 percent of blacks could interpret a bus schedule; and only 44 percent of whites,
20 percent of Hispanics, and 8 percent of blacks could fig-ure out the change they were owed
from buying two items. In recent years, moreover, an especially troublesome obstacle that
working women face has been brought to light: sexual harassment. Forty-two per-cent of all
women working for the federal government reported that they had experienced some form of
uninvited and unwanted sexual attention, ranging from sexual remarks to attempted rape or
assault. Women working as executives, prison guards, and even as rabbis, have reported being
sexually harassed. Victims of such verbal or physical forms of sexual harassment were most
likely to be single or divorced, between the ages of 20 and 44, have some college education, and
work in a predominantly male environment or for a male supervisor. In 1992 about 5000
complaints of sexual harassment were filed with the federal government’s Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, and thou-sands of other complaints were lodged with state civil rights
commissions. It is clear, then, that unless a number of current trends change, women and

25
minorities, who will comprise the bulk of new workers between now and the end of the century,
will find themselves in highly disadvantaged positions as they enter the workforce.

The various statistical comparisons that we have examined, together with the extensive research
showing that these differences are not because of any simple way to differences in preferences or
abilities, indicate that American business institutions incorporate some degree of systematic
discrimination, much of it, perhaps, an unconscious relic of the past. Whether we compare
average incomes, proportional representation in the highest economic positions, or proportional
representation in the lowest economic positions, it turns out that women and minorities are not
equal to white males, and the last twenty years have seen but small narrowing of the racial and
sexual gaps. Moreover, a number of ominous trends indicate that unless we embark on some
major changes, the situation for minorities and women will not improve. Of course, finding that
our economic institutions as a whole still embody a great deal of discrimination does not show
that any particular business is discriminatory. To find out whether a particular firm is
discriminatory, we would have to make the same sorts of comparisons among the various
employment levels of the firm that we made above among the various economic and occupation
all levels of American society as a whole. To facilitate such comparisons within firms, employers
today are required to report to the government the numbers of minorities and women their firm
employs in each of nine categories: officials and managers, professionals, technicians, sales
workers, office and clerical workers, skilled craft workers, semiskilled operatives, unskilled la-
borers, and service workers.

26
 CHAPTER-5

CASE STUDIES ON ETHICS OF JOB

DISCRIMINATION

27
Business Ethics:
Hiring, Firing and Discrimination

Discrimination and Affirmative Action Policies

The underlying evil of all affirmative action programs is that individuals are categorized by their
race as one of the fundamental bedrocks of human rights is the principle that all human beings
are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Discrimination and persecution on the grounds of
race and ethnicity are clear violations of this principle. This principle inevitably prolongs racism.
So, the corporations desperately seek to present themselves as non-discriminating and careers are
shattered by unjust accusations of racism. Affirmative action is a plan designed to end
discrimination by guaranteeing minorities will be hired, regardless of race or gender. While our
country hires such groups based upon these guarantees, the qualifications of such people are
occasionally overlooked and it insists that the employer must avoid the kind of unnecessary
escalation of criteria for selection and promotion which has sometimes been used to keep certain
classes of people from entering the mainstream of our economic life. This aspect of the plan
creates more openings for minorities; however, it also suggests that the standards should be
maintained at a low to guarantee these openings. But in the case study of Julie it can be clearly
seen that the company is more comfortable and productive when they don't have too much
diversity with respect to racialism as part of their policy and discriminating them on the cost of
ignoring one’s talent, hard-work and professional experience irrespective of his physical
characteristics such as hair type, color of eyes and skin, stature etc which can be beneficial for
the company.

Essential Hiring Practices

There are a few principles which should be followed in the recruiting and hiring process. First is
to require outside testing which is to allow a competent, impartial professional interviewer to
administer both paper and pencil and verbal tests. Secondly, conduct a rigorous personal
interview. This includes asking general attitude questions, relating to the applicant’s
understanding of the financial workings of a business and the department’s role in the business’s
overall success, questions relating to the applicant’s ability to set goals and his or her

28
expectations about achieving goals, questions relating to specific skills required for the job, and
general communications required by the job. Third is to arrange a peer group interview which
encourages applicants to speak more freely and helps determine how comfortable they will be in
working with their peers. Follow up with a meeting of everyone involved in the hiring decision
to determine if there is a group consensus about the applicant’s suitability for work at your
company. Forth is to do a background check even if it is an employee’s cousin or your
competitor’s best salesperson. It’s very easy to set up an account with an investigative firm
online and to relatively quickly and inexpensively find out if the applicant has a criminal record
or a history of DMV problems, lawsuits involving previous employers, workers’ compensation
claims, and so forth. Lastly, we can have a reference check by conducting these over the phone,
but they may involve a request in writing. Reference checking is less effective than it used to be,
although you may still find a few people who are willing to talk. Most former employers play it
safe and verify only dates of employment and salary.

Conclusion

The conclusion is that remedies for intentional and unintentional discrimination against racial
and ethnic minorities may pose problems. Governments are obliged to take special measures to
ensure the adequate development and protection of racial groups. This includes affirmative
action programs. States are also required to promote racial understanding through the education
system.

References

1) The legal and ethical issues involved in discrimination and affirmative action policies
[http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090308202213AAHkArK]

2) Five Essential Hiring Practices by Jan B. King [http://www.siliconfareast.com/hiring.htm]

29
DETAIL COMPARABLE WORTH

Category: Gender

In October of 1999 the government of Canada agreed to pay 2.3 billion dollars to 230,000 federal
workers, both current and retired, in the form of back pay with interest, to conform with the
principle of "equal pay for work of equal value" embodied in Canada's Human Rights Act. The
drafters of this law, enacted more than twenty years ago, noted that the vast majority of women
in the workforce in Canada were clustered in a small number of "women's" jobs, such as office
worker, nurse, or waitress. Women in these jobs, the drafters of Canada's Human Rights Act
observed, usually receive less pay than men in predominantly male jobs, which, despite their
higher salaries, are comparable to the predominantly female jobs in terms of factors such as the
mental or physical demands of the job, working conditions, or educational prerequisites.

To address this situation, the government of Canada organized a committee made up of

employees and managers drawn from various Canadian federal government departments to
develop a numerically based system for comparing predominantly male and predominantly
female jobs. The committee rated a wide array of jobs in terms of four factors: educational
prerequisites, job responsibilities, mental demands, and on the job working conditions. The
committee determined that "male" jobs tended strongly to have higher salaries than female jobs
at the same point levels. For example, a chief librarian made $35,050 while a dairy herd
improvement manager made $38,766. A computer operations supervisor made $20,193, while a
forestry project supervisor made $26,947. A typist made $10,531, while a sailor made $14,097.
In all of the above instances the predominantly female and the predominantly male jobs were
determined to have comparable point levels.

The Canadian government's 2.3 billion dollar settlement has drawn strong criticism. Monte
Solberg, a Reform Party member of the Canadian Parliament lamented that "[t]o come up with
some concept where a bunch of bureaucrats arbitrarily decide, based on some abstract theory,
that one job that women dominate is somehow the same as another completely different job that
men dominate - it's unworkable." Other critics protest that the settlement will increase the taxes

30
in Canada, whose taxpayers already shoulder the highest tax burden among the Group of Seven
industrialized nations.

Defenders of the Canadian government's settlement view it as needed to rectify, what they
consider, the discriminatory impact upon female workers of the Canadian government's
employment compensation policies over many years. Even if the lower wages for predominantly
female jobs reflect going market salary rates, say the supporters of the settlement, these market
rates themselves reflect pervasive discrimination against women in the workforce. Furthermore,
the supporters of the settlement contest that the settlement will have a severely negative impact
upon the Canadian economy. In this regard, Daryl Bean, President of the Canadian federal
service union, estimated that over 40% of the 2.3 billion would be returned as taxes to the
government.

31
Confronting HIV Discrimination in the Workplace

As published in Human Rights, Fall 2004, Vol. 31, No. 4, p.16-19.

By Hayley Gorenberg

Even as the quarter-century mark in the HIV/AIDS epidemic approaches, many HIV-positive
employees experience job-threatening discrimination, especially if they do not “drive desks.”
Lambda Legal, the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights firm for lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and HIV-positive people, has recently developed cases for an HIV-positive police
officer, a medical technician, an auto glass installer, and, most famously, a talented gymnast
whose discrimination claim yielded this year’s record-setting settlement in Cusick v. Cirque du
Soleil. (EEOC No. 340-2003-10938.) Matthew Cusick’s job under the big top may have been
unusual, but the discrimination he faced in the workplace is all too common. Lambda Legal’s
national Help Desk logs thousands of calls each year, and the greatest source of complaints from
its HIV-positive callers involves workplace discrimination. This article examines a few of the
critical components to success in Cusick’s case.

Cirque du Soleil, the premier acrobatic circus show, hired Matthew Cusick in 2002 and assigned
him to the international company’s Las Vegas production, Mystère. In general health discussions
with Cirque’s physiotherapy department at the beginning of his training, Cusick voluntarily
disclosed his HIV status. At Cirque’s request, he twice visited doctors who assessed his HIV and
judged him a “healthy athlete.” He was cleared for full performance activities with Cirque. Yet
in the spring of 2003, fresh from several months of intense training, Cirque fired Cusick based
upon fears of HIV transmission, claiming it was acting to protect other employees from “known
safety hazards.” Shortly thereafter, Cusick came to Lambda Legal.

When Cirque refused to reconsider its decision, Lambda Legal filed a complaint under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with the Los Angeles office of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After the EEOC investigation supported Cusick’s allegations,
conciliation talks between the parties eventually resulted in a groundbreaking settlement for
HIV-related employment discrimination complaints. It included revision of Cirque’s
antidiscrimination policies; ongoing, top-to-bottom antidiscrimination training for Cirque’s

32
employees worldwide; a minimum of two years of compliance monitoring by the EEOC;
compensation for Cusick’s lost wages in the amount of $60,000; front pay in the amount of
$200,000; and compensatory damages of $300,000, the maximum available under the ADA for a
company of Cirque’s size. Lambda Legal also received $40,000 toward payment for its attorney
fees.

The Power of Public Disclosure

Public awareness exerted critical pressure throughout Cusick’s case. Lambda’s “Discrimination:
The Other Side of Cirque du Soleil” public education campaign encouraged patrons to examine
Cirque’s values and standards. Rather than a boycott, Lambda Legal promoted education and
individual responses, ultimately sending thousands of petition signatures and messages to
Cirque. One evening Cusick himself stood outside a show in California and urged some reluctant
patrons to use their tickets and go inside, but to keep him in mind. At another show, local HIV
activists donned clown costumes when they distributed educational flyers, attracting local
camera crews and colorful coverage.

Lambda Legal’s public education campaign attracted diverse allies. High-recognition performers
like Nathan Lane, Bebe Neuwirth, Rosie O’Donnell, and Chita Rivera, as well as the outspoken
playwright Tony Kushner, combined with medical experts to focus the spotlight. Many sports
groups, including the San Francisco Fog rugby team—which pointed out that it did not exclude
people with HIV even while boasting of rugby’s bloodiness—embodied the standards used by
groups such as the World Health Organization, the U.S. Olympics Committee, the National
Basketball Association, and even the American Academy of Pediatrics’ sports medicine
specialists. All agreed that no medical or scientific basis existed to bar HIV-positive athletes
from competition, or even to require HIV testing. During the hundreds of thousands of high-
contact sports contests played since HIV first emerged, there has never been a single documented
case of HIV transmission.

Lambda’s allies helped drive its points home, especially when Cirque du Soleil began suggesting
it could justify firing Cusick as protection not only for fellow performers but for members of
Cirque’s audience! The presence of allied performers and athletes helped strengthen Lambda’s

33
case by furnishing analogous workplaces that countered efforts to “exceptionalize” Cirque as a
one-of-a-kind employer that might deserve some sort of specialized standard. These allies were
particularly motivated by Cusick and Lambda Legal’s clear stance that they sought policy
change that would help all HIV-positive employees rather than financial compensation alone.

Finally, Lambda Legal and Cusick found allies in local governments with strong
antidiscrimination ordinances. San Francisco’s Human Rights Commission, after learning of the
EEOC filing, brought its own complaint because the city bans contracts (such as land leases)
with discriminatory employers. Had the case continued, Lambda would have investigated the
triggers for antidiscrimination ordinances in other cities hosting Cirque. Advocates should more
routinely explore these types of provisions in cases opposing employers who hold or seek
government contracts.

The power of openness was crucial to success. Cusick’s refusal to file as a “John Doe” and his
willingness to face reporters helped obtain critical media coverage for the case. His disclosures
were painful, of course. Friends and family who had not known of his HIV status found out via
newspapers and the Internet. Ultimately, however, Cusick reaped such emotional support from
those who learned of his story that he deemed it well worth the risk. In a similar vein, working
toward a public settlement allowed Cusick’s case to have far greater force than a “gagged”
settlement would have had. Cusick came to Lambda Legal in part because the organization
strives for an impact that extends beyond the individual target of discrimination, even while it
advocates vigorously for that person. Because Lambda reached a public settlement with Cirque
du Soleil, it set public (if not court-sanctioned) precedent. The dollar figures alone, widely
reported in the popular press and verdict reporters, caused employers and defense attorneys to
take notice.

The Price of Intolerance

The considerable front pay award in Cusick’s case warrants mention. Late in the case, many
months after Cirque fired Cusick, the company announced that it would reinstate him.
Ultimately, Cusick did not accept this reinstatement, in part due to continuing hostility from
Cirque leadership. Arguably, his decision could have raised a legal issue of whether Cirque’s

34
offer mitigated its damages. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, however, “In cases in which
reinstatement is not viable because of continuing hostility between the plaintiff and the employer
or its workers, or because of psychological injuries suffered by the plaintiff as a result of
discrimination, courts have ordered front pay as a substitute for reinstatement.” (Pollard v. E.I.
du Pont de Nemours, 121 S. Ct. 1946, 1948 (2001).) Rightly, Cusick’s well-considered and
painful decision to reject the late-breaking offer of reinstatement did not affect his case’s
success.

As a settlement, the Cirque resolution did not include a punitive damages figure. However,
Cirque’s actions, coupled with lack of support for its conclusions regarding the HIV transmission
risk, contributed to allegations of heavy liability. Months into the case, a Cirque spokesperson
made public statements such as, “We believe that twenty years of experience in this area are
enough for us to determine risk.”

Not so. The twenty-first century should be an age of enlightenment when it comes to HIV in the
workplace. Employers must incorporate medical and scientific information into their operations
rather than relying on fears and assumptions. Self-proclaimed expertise should furnish no shield.
Matthew Cusick opened his life to the world to drive that point home.

35