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
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
