This paper examines the ethical dimensions of gender-based pay discrimination as illustrated by the landmark Supreme Court case Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Using deontological ethics as its primary framework, the paper argues that unequal pay for equal work is morally unjustifiable because it violates universal moral principles — particularly respect for human dignity. The paper develops two supporting premises, compares deontological ethics with utilitarianism, addresses the objection that labor market factors and individual differences justify pay disparities, and rebuts that objection by centering the concept of equal pay for equal work. The analysis concludes that universal moral principles, rather than individual or market variables, must guide assessments of pay equity.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. is one of the landmark Supreme Court cases on the issue of pay inequities due to gender. The ruling in this case was made at a time when gender-based pay inequities continue to permeate the public and private sectors. Gender-based pay inequities are common in today's business environment despite amendments to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1963 Equal Pay Act (Riccucci, 2008). Existing pay disparities continue to make it difficult to achieve pay equality.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. not only raised legal concerns relating to pay discrimination but also highlighted an ethical problem. The ethical problem in this case is gender-based pay discrimination, which is a major issue facing women in the workplace. Despite the establishment of laws and policies to promote pay equality, women are not treated as fairly as their male counterparts with regard to pay. Women with job skills and experience similar to men tend to receive lower compensation for the same work. Ledbetter's case sought to address the discrimination of unfair pay based on gender. The ruling in this case has significant implications for pay equality in both the public and private sectors.
Unequal pay between men and women in the workplace is neither morally justifiable nor ethically defensible. The ethical theory of deontology supports the view that gender-based pay disparities are unethical and morally unjustifiable on the grounds that such acts are not the right thing to do under any circumstances. Deontological ethics emphasizes that the right or wrong of an action is not determined by its consequences but by its conformity with moral norms (Aiston, 2011). Moral norms should be observed by all parties involved, or by each moral agent. Deontological ethics is based on two motivations: action aversion and harm aversion (Armstrong, Friesdorf & Conway, 2018). As a principle of duty ethics, deontological ethics holds that the right or wrong of an action is judged based on how it conforms to universal moral principles. One example of such a moral principle used to assess conduct is treating every individual with dignity. Therefore, actions that avoid causing harm are consistent with the ethical theory of deontology (Armstrong, Friesdorf & Conway, 2018).
Deontological ethics lends itself to the position that unequal pay between men and women is morally unjustifiable on the basis that such actions do not conform to universal moral principles. As previously noted, one of the universally accepted moral principles is treating every individual with dignity. Determining whether gender-based pay inequalities are morally justifiable therefore requires considering the extent to which they conform to morally acceptable principles. Unequal pay does not conform to universal moral principles, as it promotes unfair and discriminatory treatment of others. Moral principles — rather than consequences — are the premise for determining the morality of pay disparities between men and women in the workplace. Moreover, deontological ethics supports this moral position because the issue constitutes a form of gender discrimination that promotes the treatment of either gender unfairly and without dignity. Respect for human dignity is the right thing to do at all times and in all circumstances, regardless of outcomes, and it lies at the core of issues relating to unequal pay between men and women.
Gender-based pay disparities reflect unfair treatment of one gender and a lack of respect for human dignity. Traditionally, women's role was essentially staying at home and caring for the household and children. However, society has continued to evolve, resulting in changes in the roles of both men and women. Today's society is characterized by a growing number of women in the workplace. In some cases, women are the breadwinners in their families or provide financial support to their partners. Additionally, women have become more educated and empowered and now occupy similar job positions and roles as men, making comparable contributions to both the family and the economy. Despite these changes in women's roles in the workplace, they tend not to share equal rights and opportunities as men. While women occupy similar roles and perform the same jobs as men, they are not being treated equally. As shown in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the ethical problem of pay disparities is one way women in today's workplace have been treated unfairly and without dignity despite their enormous contributions to family and society.
Deontological ethics promotes doing what is ethically right and in conformity with moral principles. Gender-based pay disparities do not conform to moral principles because they promote unfair treatment and a lack of respect for the dignity of either gender. Under this framework, determining a suitable course of action requires considering conformity to moral principles rather than simply looking at outcomes. This ethical theory provides the most suitable solution to the issue, as consideration of universally acceptable moral principles would serve as the premise for the Supreme Court's decision. In applying this standard, the Supreme Court should have considered whether limiting the period for filing pay discrimination lawsuits would be tantamount to unfair treatment of the involved parties. By limiting the filing window to 180 days, the Court effectively promoted unfair treatment and seemingly entrenched gender-based pay disparities — an outcome that is morally unjustifiable.
Pay disparities between men and women are forms of gender discrimination that are morally unjustifiable. Stamarski & Hing (2015) note that HR practices such as pay can be used to entrench gender inequalities and discrimination in the workplace. Women are increasingly subjected to harmful gender inequalities and discrimination through HR practices related to pay. Pay disparities between men and women — especially those in similar jobs with the same qualifications — are reflections of sexism. When gender-based pay disparities become entrenched in an organization's HR practices, they perpetuate discrimination. In essence, gender-based pay disparities can both contribute to and be caused by other forms of discrimination. As evident in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., such practices promote organizational discrimination that is reflected in existing structures, policies, and organizational climate. Lower pay for women at Goodyear became embedded in the company's organizational processes and structures, seemingly promoting gender-based stigmatization and negatively affecting women's well-being.
Based on deontological ethics, gender-based discrimination is not morally justifiable. It is morally unacceptable because it favors one gender over another, creating an imbalanced environment in which one gender is viewed and treated as second-class. Since gender-based pay disparities constitute a form of gender discrimination, they are not morally justifiable, as they unfairly target one gender. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act were enacted and have been amended to address gender discrimination by promoting equal pay for equal work (Riccucci, 2008). Based on these laws, equal pay for equal work is one of the principal measures for addressing gender discrimination. This implies that the right thing to do is to offer equal pay for equal work regardless of gender or sexual orientation; otherwise, an organization is actively promoting gender discrimination in its pay policies.
"Comparing ethical frameworks on pay equity"
"Labor market differences cited to justify pay gaps"
"Equal pay for equal work refutes objection"
You’re 58% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.