SEMINAR REPORT ON ETHICS IN JOB DISCRIMINATION

Submitted to: Lect. Manpreet kaur

Submitted by: KULBHUSHAN MBA-2nd (C) Roll no-5504

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES PUNJABI UNIVERSITY PATIALA

1

TABLE OF CONTENT

PAGE NO.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 WHAT IS DISCRIMINATION CHATER 3 THE ELEMENTS IN ETHICS OF JOB DISCRIMINATION CHAPTER -4 PRESENT SCENARIO OF ETHICS OF JOB DESCRIMINATION CHAPTER-5 CASE STUDIES ON ETHICS OF JOB DISCRIMINATION 27 16 13 9 3

CHAPTER -1

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.

It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT

Ethics is not the same as feelings. Ethics is not religion Ethics is not following the law. Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms. Ethics is not science

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 companys resources should not be utilized by the employees for their personal usage. Company should provide better environment condition Information about employees 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 employees company.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 discriminate against women or minorities.

CHAPTER-5

CASE STUDIES ON ETHICS OF JOB DISCRIMINATION

10

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
11

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 ones 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 applicants understanding of the financial workings of a business and the departments role in the businesss overall success, questions relating to the applicants ability to set goals and his or her 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 applicants suitability for work at your company. Forth is to do a background check even if it is an employees cousin or your competitors best salesperson. Its 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

12

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]

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
13

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 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.

14

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 nations 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 years record-setting settlement in Cusick v. Cirque du Soleil. (EEOC No. 340-2003-10938.) Matthew Cusicks job under the big top may have been unusual, but the discrimination he faced in the workplace is all too common. Lambda Legals 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 Cusicks case.

15

Cirque du Soleil, the premier acrobatic circus show, hired Matthew Cusick in 2002 and assigned him to the international companys Las Vegas production, Mystre. In general health discussions with Cirques physiotherapy department at the beginning of his training, Cusick voluntarily disclosed his HIV status. At Cirques 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 Cusicks allegations, conciliation talks between the parties eventually resulted in a groundbreaking settlement for HIV-related employment discrimination complaints. It included revision of Cirques antidiscrimination policies; ongoing, top-to-bottom antidiscrimination training for Cirques employees worldwide; a minimum of two years of compliance monitoring by the EEOC; compensation for Cusicks 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 Cirques size. Lambda Legal also received $40,000 toward payment for its attorney fees. The Power of Public Disclosure Public awareness exerted critical pressure throughout Cusicks case. Lambdas Discrimination: The Other Side of Cirque du Soleil public education campaign encouraged patrons to examine Cirques 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.

16

Lambda Legals public education campaign attracted diverse allies. High-recognition performers like Nathan Lane, Bebe Neuwirth, Rosie ODonnell, 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 teamwhich pointed out that it did not exclude people with HIV even while boasting of rugbys bloodinessembodied 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 highcontact sports contests played since HIV first emerged, there has never been a single documented case of HIV transmission. Lambdas 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 Cirques audience! The presence of allied performers and athletes helped strengthen Lambdas 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 Legals 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 Franciscos 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. Cusicks 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
17

those who learned of his story that he deemed it well worth the risk. In a similar vein, working toward a public settlement allowed Cusicks 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 Cusicks 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 Cirques 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, Cusicks well-considered and painful decision to reject the late-breaking offer of reinstatement did not affect his cases success. As a settlement, the Cirque resolution did not include a punitive damages figure. However, Cirques 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

18

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.

19