Discriminatory Pay the Female Employees

Discriminatory Pay

The female employees at the public works department of a governmental agency discovered that they were being paid less than their male counterparts, with percentages as high as 20 even 30 per cent lower than their male counterparts. The situation was initially addressed by the direct supervisor, who decided to not take any measure. As the matter was taken to the higher authority, it was discovered that a conflict of interest existed as the assistant city manager was married to the personnel director, who would have traditionally been assigned to address the problem.

In the existent context, the ethical decision was taken to contract the services of a consultant in order to have them provide their specialized input. Also, aside from the conflict of interest between the two important decision makers, the consultant would act as a mediator between the employees who fell discriminated against and the administration of the institution. The existence of a third party between these two entities is necessary in order to eliminate emotions, to support objectivity and to provide professional input (Mediation Program).

Within the situation encountered, the contracted consultant would be expected to act based on the following:

The assessment of the salaries offered to the women and those offered to the male employees

The comparison of the elements which sit at the basis of wage determination, such as educational attainment, experience, loyalty to the firm and so on. At this stage, gender criteria would not be included.

The construction of a report on the compared analysis between the wages currently offered to the female employees and the wages they should receive based on their ability to complete the job, rather than gender. In case there exist differences between the two sets of wages, the recommendation would be to increment the salaries of the women; otherwise, ethical concerns would be forwarded regarding the entity, and this could even be sued and as such register financial losses as well.

4. Marriage and employment

Candace Wilson and Enrique Partune met as co-workers and eventually married, but the policy at the water districts forces one of them to quit, or would terminate them both. They have been suspended for fifteen days without pay, and are expected to decide which one would quit. The couple however appealed the decision and they base this on discrimination. Their primary argument is that at least one same-sex married couple is working in the district and that two other unmarried heterosexual couples are also working in the district. Candace and Enrique as such feel discriminated against because they are married.