100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Summary Week 5 Argumentative Essay.docx PHI 445 Argumentative Essay The University of Arizona Global Campus PHI 445: Personal and Organizational Ethics Argumentative Essay In the case, Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., we are presented with a coupl $7.49   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. University Of Phoenix
  4.  
  5. University Of Phoenix UoP

Summary

Summary Week 5 Argumentative Essay.docx PHI 445 Argumentative Essay The University of Arizona Global Campus PHI 445: Personal and Organizational Ethics Argumentative Essay In the case, Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., we are presented with a coupl
 2 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • University Of Phoenix UoP
  • Institution
  • University Of Phoenix

Week 5 Argumentative E PHI 445 Argumentative Essay The University of Arizona Global Campus PHI 445: Personal and Organizational Ethics Argumentative Essay In the case, Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., we are presented with a couple of issues. One issue is that Lilly Ledbetters salar...

[Show more]

Preview 2 out of 6  pages

Document information

  • March 30, 2022
  • 6
  • 2021/2022
  • Summary

Subjects

  • week 5 argumentative essaydocx phi 445 argumentative essay the university of arizona global campus phi 445 personal and organizational ethics argumentative essay in the case
  • ledbetter vs goo

Written for

  • University Of Phoenix
  • University Of Phoenix UoP
All documents for this subject (3705)

Seller

avatar-seller
nerdpool

Reviews received

Content preview

PHI 445

Argumentative Essay


The University of Arizona Global Campus

PHI 445: Personal and Organizational Ethics




Argumentative Essay

In the case, Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., we are presented with a couple of

issues. One issue is that Lilly Ledbetter’s salary was much less than her male coworkers when

her expiration date with Goodyear was approaching (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Another

issue presented in this case is that Ledbetter was unwillingly reassigned to an unwanted job

within the company. An impartial presentation of the controversy may be presented as income

inequality and gender role diversity. Even though Ledbetter was the only woman to work as a

production manager, she got paid less than her male coworkers. The setting for this case can be

both capitalism and socialism. On the capitalism side, we can see it as a self-act because Lilly

Ledbetter wanted to gain something personally. She was seeking respect and equal pay. As an

employee, you would expect all coworkers with the same experience to get paid the same

amount, which was not the case for Ledbetter. As a supervisor, Lilly Ledbetter was getting paid

less than the lowest-paid male supervisor (Brake & Grossman, 2007). On the other hand, we see

socialism in the sense that this case helps people as a whole. Ledbetter helped those who might

be struggling with something similar or for future claims by filing this complaint. Because of this

case, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was formed. A few laws listed that affect the business's

operations are the Civil Rights Act Title VII, the main federal anti-employment-discrimination

statute (Brake & Grossman, 2007), the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act changes federal law to restart

the clock on the deadline for suing each time an employee is paid a paycheck affected by an

allegedly discriminatory pay decision (Bader, 2013), and the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that

would make changes to the Equal Pay Act, this Act would completely eliminate the cap on

, compensatory and punitive damages for one special category of discrimination plaintiff—those

alleging gender-based pay discrimination (Bader, 2013).




Ethical Theory

Lilly Ledbetter is morally justifiable. Lilly Ledbetter did what she felt was an obligation

to be heard and seen as an equal which can be seen as deontology. Sadly, Ledbetter lost the case

because of timing. According to Bader, Ledbetter was aware of the pay gap between her and her

coworkers for about five years before she filed an accusation (Bader, 2013). Title VII states that a

person has 180 days after the supposed improper employment practice happened to present a

claim to the EEOC (Brake & Grossman, 2007). In her doing what she believed was justifiable,

Lilly's case resulted in the start of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which can help in favor of

those who unfortunately go through the same or similar biased situations, which in this case were

income inequality, an unequal handling of a population’s income due to possibility of

discrimination and gender diversity, which refers to a person's gender identity, role, or expression

deferring from the normal cultural recommendation for people of a certain gender (American

Psychological Association, 2015).

Thesis Support

My first reason for supporting my thesis is that the same way employees get held

accountable for their actions, so should the employers. When Ledbetter began working for

Goodyear, her salary seemed to be aligned with all the other supervisors. Bible states that "over

time, however, her pay did not keep pace with that of male managers with equal or less seniority,

so that when she retired in 1998, she was being paid $3,727 per month, whereas the lowest and

highest paid males received, respectively, $4,286 and $5,236 (Bible, 2007)." Lilly Ledbetter

worked as a manager for 19 years for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. According to Cimpl-Wiemer

she had "high level of seniority, excellent performance reviews, and the second-highest score on

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller nerdpool. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $7.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

75323 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$7.49
  • (0)
  Add to cart