Gender Discrimination This Report Aims

Gender Discrimination

This report aims to prove that the hiring and promotional policies in Company X are discriminatory towards females. We are prepared to present expert testimony that details and outlines evidence of rampant illegal discrimination in the company Human Resource policies over the course of many years. This information will and should be used to receive remedy from this court of law for the female plaintiffs to rectify this practice of blatant Company X glass ceiling policy implementation. Nowhere in our highly industrialized nation have women been able to enjoy what we would consider equal status to their male counterparts. However, the labor market has extremes and Company X falls into this extreme category.

Although sexual inequality in employment avenues seems to be a universal phenomenon, evidence indicates that Company X represents an extreme case in our nation. Our objective is to prove that throughout the history of Company X, male employees have benefited by receiving higher earnings through salaries and other benefits as well as higher level positional promotions than their female peers. Given the composition of the workforce of Company X, we have determined that despite the fact that the female employees have consistently worked longer hours than the male employees, they do not receive proportionate pay at Company X.

In Company X, gender inequality in the workplace persists as in the majority of other companies in their industry. For the last few years at least, Company X's women have placed their hopes of equality in the Equal Employment Opportunity Act (EEOA) of 1985. We praise the EEOA enactment as an innovative approach to ensuring gender equality. The problem with the EEOA is that it emphasized voluntary compliance. Company X has obviously decided voluntary does not mean mandatory and therefore has not implemented the policy requirements at all. In other words, here at Company X, the EEOA has been totally ineffective in eliminating gender inequality.

Analyzing the challenges that women in Company X face is possible through the statistical records of the company's Human Resource records. Our understanding of the business culture screams that discriminatory thinking is a hidden agenda in the company. The practice is distributed throughout the company's departments and pay scales and therefore, it is clear that these practices are no accident. The company purposely discriminates against women.

Company X's women occupy less than one percent of all level 4 and 5 management positions and more than one third of the women in Company X are employed in the majority of the departments as menial clerks. Females make up forty two percent of the workforce yet, as can be demonstrated by the following HR report, the glass ceiling is alive and well at Company X.

Level FM Total

As the court can clearly see, there are no upper management female employees and there are only 2 at level 4. In other words, ninety eight percent of the decision making positions of Company X are held by men and all one hundred percent of executive level positions are male dominated. How can this be logical considering that females make up over forty percent of all employees at company X?

These discrepancies also hold true in Company X's pay scales. The average salary for a man in the company is approximately $112,000 verses female employees who average salaries of approximately $79,000. This scale has obviously been skewed because of the executive level positional differences. But, it is not surprising that these inconsistencies carry over from each department throughout the company. Throughout the prized positions in the company, males hold all of the better jobs and are therefore receiving the benefits associated such as higher pay. These statistics, see appendix A, (ADD Statistical information to Appendix A) imply that males have better employment options and in turn receive higher pay throughout Company X's operation.