Read The Following Case First Then Proceed To The Next Stepsa Major
Read the following case first; then proceed to the next steps. A major cosmetics company posted a position on a local jobs board looking for a sales representative. The posting stated “Established fortune 500 company has an immediate opening for sales representative in the New York area. Candidates should have 3 or more years of experience in the cosmetics industry and a proven track record of success in this field.” Sara and Jim both applied for the position in New York City. Sara is 24 and has 3 years of experience with a rival cosmetics company in their marketing department.
Jim has 18 years of experience as a cosmetics representative who has just recently been laid off and is 49 years old. The company decided to hire Sara; and during the interview process, Jim was told that the company thought women were better suited for the cosmetics industry. It was also alluded to during Jim’s interview that the company wanted younger people to promote their product line. Jim filed a lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and after a year and a half of litigation, Jim was awarded the job. During this time, Sara had been a very successful employee; however, with only one position available, the company had to fire Sara.
Paper For Above instruction
In examining this case from an ethical and legal perspective, critical questions arise regarding fairness, discrimination, and the role of government institutions such as the EEOC. The company’s decision to initially favor Sara over Jim, influenced by stereotypical assumptions about gender and age, exemplifies unlawful discriminatory practices. This case underscores the importance of ensuring employment equality and the need for government agencies like the EEOC to intervene when discriminatory actions occur.
The EEOC's role is to enforce federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. When Jim filed his lawsuit asserting age and gender discrimination, the EEOC’s task was to evaluate whether his rights were violated under laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Given the evidence that his interview was influenced by discriminatory assumptions, the EEOC's decision to award Jim the job appears justified. Their intervention rectified an injustice rooted in bias, promoting a fair employment process.
If I were part of the EEOC, I would have reached the same conclusion—supporting Jim's claim and ensuring equitable treatment for all applicants regardless of age or gender. The company's expressed biases not only breach legal standards but also undermine ethical principles of equal opportunity. Recognizing
and correcting such discrimination is critical for maintaining social justice and fostering an inclusive workforce.
Applying ethical theories to this case sheds light on the philosophical underpinnings of justice and power. Machiavelli, in his pragmatic view of power, emphasizes the importance of rulers maintaining control and authority to ensure stability (Machiavelli, 1532/1998). If Machiavelli were to analyze the government’s role here, he might argue that law enforcement agencies like the EEOC serve as instruments of power that preserve social order against disruptive biases. Machiavelli might suggest that the government’s intervention was necessary to uphold the stability of fair employment practices, asserting that “it is better to be feared than loved,” implying that authority may sometimes need to enforce harsh measures (Machiavelli, 1532/1998, ch. 17).
Hobbes’ social contract theory also provides an insightful lens. Hobbes believed that humans enter into a social contract to escape the chaos of natural state, establishing authority to maintain peace and security (Hobbes, 1651/1985). From his perspective, the government’s involvement in rectifying discrimination aligns with the sovereign’s duty to protect citizens from harm, including injustices rooted in bias. In Hobbesian terms, the failure to prevent discrimination could threaten societal stability, thereby justifying the EEOC’s intervention to uphold order and protect individual rights, ensuring the security of the social contract.
Both philosophers underscore the importance of centralized authority and the use of power to sustain societal stability and justice. Machiavelli might advocate for the strategic use of power to enforce stability, even if it involves harsh measures; Hobbes would emphasize the sovereign’s role in safeguarding peace and order, including through the enforcement of equal employment rights.
In conclusion, the case exemplifies the critical role of government authority in correcting societal injustices rooted in bias. Both Machiavelli and Hobbes emphasize the importance of power and authority in maintaining social stability, which in this context translates to fair employment practices. The EEOC’s intervention reflects the necessity of authoritative mechanisms to uphold justice and protect individuals from discrimination, aligning with the philosophical principles these thinkers advocated for in their visions of order and power.
References
Machiavelli, N. (1998). The Prince. (W. K. Marriot, Trans.). Dover Publications. (Original work published
Hobbes, T. (1985). Leviathan. (R. C. Davies, Trans.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1651) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Laws Enforced by EEOC. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/laws-enforced-eeoc
Feinberg, J. (1980). Social and Personal Ethics. In R. Audi (Ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (pp. 845-848). Cambridge University Press.
Ordon■ez, J. (2017). Discrimination and Employment Law. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), 255–263.