PHI 445
Case Study, Ledbetter v. Goodyear
University of Arizona Global Campus
PHI 445: Personal & Organizational Ethics
Case Study, Ledbetter v. Goodyear
Gender discrimination is not a new concept or trend. Discrimination is described by
Fieser (2015) as "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of people on arbitrary grounds, such as race,
gender, or age, which results in denial of opportunity, such as in public accommodations or
employment."(p.136). In Ledbetter vs. Goodyear, the laws of pay discrimination in the
workplace based on gender are examined. The United States is a mixed economy that combines
free trade and minimal to moderate government involvement, depending on the element. The
United States uses a court system to uphold, enforce, and interpret the laws. In this case, Ms.
Ledbetter filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
alleging various forms of discrimination, including pay discrimination due to her female gender,
under the Title VII discrimination law (Bader, 2013). After Goodyear was found guilty, Ms.
Ledbetter's case was dismissed after Goodyear appealed it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court ruled that although there was gender discrimination, she did not file her claim within the
interpreted deadline of the Title VII laws. The interpretation of the time constraint resulted in her
case being dismissed. Goodyear used the blurred language within the laws to have the claims
dismissed. These types of loopholes allow laws to be manipulated to fit the agenda of those
seeking to maneuver around them.
Loopholes and vague time constraints within the laws protect companies that practice
gender pay discrimination, allowing them to escape responsibility. In the case of Ledbetter vs.
Goodyear, I will argue the moral dilemma that blurry time constraints and loopholes within
employment and discrimination laws are being used to neglect those its purpose is to protect. The
, loopholes with Title VII laws protected Goodyear, thus allowing the discrimination and not
defending those it is intended to protect. If the ethical theory of deontology guided our courts,
there would be more accountability of guilty parties. Deontology is defined as "the position that
moral standards are grounded in instinctive rational obligations-or duties- that we have." (Fieser,
2015, p.14). Fieser (2015) described, "the idea behind duty theory is that we are all born with
basic moral principles or guidelines embedded in us, and we use these to judge the morality of
people's actions" (p.14). A fundamental principle of deontology holds that “we should treat all
people as beings that have value in and of themselves, and not treat anyone as a mere instrument
for our own advantage.” (Fieser, 2015, p.15). This ethical theory commands that the courts
should have a duty to apply rational and basic moral principles when considering loopholes and
time constraints that are open to interpretation. This would require the courts to reflect on the
law's intentions and to treat or judge others as they would want others to treat them.
Loopholes and vague language should not be used to dismiss or protect companies that
are engaging in discrimination or acting immorally. In this case, Goodyear was found guilty and
ordered to pay damages to Ms. Ledbetter. The verdict was appealed by Goodyear, alleging that
the case was invalid due to the interpretation loopholes of the time constraint. Instead of
considering the law violations and basic moral principles, "the primary question before the
Supreme Court was not about gender-based wage discrimination. Rather, the question before the
Court was whether or not Ledbetter had a right to sue under Title VII since she had not filed her
claim with the EEOC within 180 days of the initial discriminatory act." (Wade & Fiorentino,
2017, p.2). The Court of appeals allowed Goodyear's interpretation of the time constraint to
override the wrongdoing and discrimination. Fieser (2015) explains how we, as humans, have
instinctive obligations and intuitive duties to know and do what is right. This case doesn't seem
to demonstrate the duties or responsibility to do what is right regarding enforcing the laws, but
how laws can be evaded.
Case Study, Ledbetter v. Goodyear
University of Arizona Global Campus
PHI 445: Personal & Organizational Ethics
Case Study, Ledbetter v. Goodyear
Gender discrimination is not a new concept or trend. Discrimination is described by
Fieser (2015) as "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of people on arbitrary grounds, such as race,
gender, or age, which results in denial of opportunity, such as in public accommodations or
employment."(p.136). In Ledbetter vs. Goodyear, the laws of pay discrimination in the
workplace based on gender are examined. The United States is a mixed economy that combines
free trade and minimal to moderate government involvement, depending on the element. The
United States uses a court system to uphold, enforce, and interpret the laws. In this case, Ms.
Ledbetter filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
alleging various forms of discrimination, including pay discrimination due to her female gender,
under the Title VII discrimination law (Bader, 2013). After Goodyear was found guilty, Ms.
Ledbetter's case was dismissed after Goodyear appealed it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court ruled that although there was gender discrimination, she did not file her claim within the
interpreted deadline of the Title VII laws. The interpretation of the time constraint resulted in her
case being dismissed. Goodyear used the blurred language within the laws to have the claims
dismissed. These types of loopholes allow laws to be manipulated to fit the agenda of those
seeking to maneuver around them.
Loopholes and vague time constraints within the laws protect companies that practice
gender pay discrimination, allowing them to escape responsibility. In the case of Ledbetter vs.
Goodyear, I will argue the moral dilemma that blurry time constraints and loopholes within
employment and discrimination laws are being used to neglect those its purpose is to protect. The
, loopholes with Title VII laws protected Goodyear, thus allowing the discrimination and not
defending those it is intended to protect. If the ethical theory of deontology guided our courts,
there would be more accountability of guilty parties. Deontology is defined as "the position that
moral standards are grounded in instinctive rational obligations-or duties- that we have." (Fieser,
2015, p.14). Fieser (2015) described, "the idea behind duty theory is that we are all born with
basic moral principles or guidelines embedded in us, and we use these to judge the morality of
people's actions" (p.14). A fundamental principle of deontology holds that “we should treat all
people as beings that have value in and of themselves, and not treat anyone as a mere instrument
for our own advantage.” (Fieser, 2015, p.15). This ethical theory commands that the courts
should have a duty to apply rational and basic moral principles when considering loopholes and
time constraints that are open to interpretation. This would require the courts to reflect on the
law's intentions and to treat or judge others as they would want others to treat them.
Loopholes and vague language should not be used to dismiss or protect companies that
are engaging in discrimination or acting immorally. In this case, Goodyear was found guilty and
ordered to pay damages to Ms. Ledbetter. The verdict was appealed by Goodyear, alleging that
the case was invalid due to the interpretation loopholes of the time constraint. Instead of
considering the law violations and basic moral principles, "the primary question before the
Supreme Court was not about gender-based wage discrimination. Rather, the question before the
Court was whether or not Ledbetter had a right to sue under Title VII since she had not filed her
claim with the EEOC within 180 days of the initial discriminatory act." (Wade & Fiorentino,
2017, p.2). The Court of appeals allowed Goodyear's interpretation of the time constraint to
override the wrongdoing and discrimination. Fieser (2015) explains how we, as humans, have
instinctive obligations and intuitive duties to know and do what is right. This case doesn't seem
to demonstrate the duties or responsibility to do what is right regarding enforcing the laws, but
how laws can be evaded.
