This document discusses various topics related to job discrimination, including: (1) Definitions of job discrimination and its various forms like intentional and unintentional discrimination. (2) Evidence of ongoing discrimination from statistical disparities and biased attitudes. (3) The historical and legal context of affirmative action programs established to remedy past discrimination. (4) Moral debates regarding affirmative action, including arguments for compensating past wrongs versus claims of reverse discrimination. (5) The comparable worth doctrine and debates over equal pay for jobs requiring equal skills. (6) Definitions of sexual harassment and appropriate ways to document and address harassment in the workplace.

1. Job Discrimination
Chapter 9

2. Overview
 Chapter Eleven examines the following topics:
(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.

3. 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?

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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 can’t be expected to atone for the sins
of the past – and why should today’s candidates receive any
special consideration?

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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 society’s interest in promoting these programs.

16. 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 can’t wish the reality of discrimination away by
pretending the world is colorblind, when it is not.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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 individual’s 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 individual’s work
performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working
environment.”

21. Sexual Harassment
 Two forms of sexual harassment:
(1)Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a supervisor makes an
employee’s job opportunities conditional on the employee’s
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.

22. 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 person’s choices and
wishes.

23. 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.