Job Discrimination Lawsuit Case

Exam Case Study Analysis
„Google Hit with Job Discrimination Lawsuit“ 1. Beief description of the situation.Christina Elwell was the national sales director for Google in 2003. In April 2004 she informed her supervisor, Timothy Armstrong, that she bad become pregneat with quadruplets. By May she felt she was being discriminated against and filed a lawsuit with the US district court in New York. She felt this way due to the following instances:According to the lawsuit Armstrong was concerned about Elwells ability to travel due to the complications with the pregnancy. That May he allegedly showed Elwell an organizational chart where her position was deleted. He then asked her to accept another position in the operations department. Elwell
This proposal was rejected and a salesman Elwell had trained, who had no internet sales expericnce was appointed as the regional sales director. "Armstrong called Elwell into his office and told her that she was an HR nightmare and that he no longer wanted her in the New York office," according to the lawsuit. Armstrong noted he had heard Elwell had been telling co workers she feels she is being treated this way becaouse of the pregnancy. The next day Elwell was fired over the phone.In June Elwell meet with HR to discuss her severance package. There Google executive Shona Brown offered to reinstate Elwell to the operations position. HR director Stacy Sullivan later contacted Elwell and told her she had been terminated improperly. Elwell accepted the operations position.Two days after Elwell's return to work on July 19, she was ordered by doctors to "remain out of work due to the stressful circumstances created by Google and Armstrong, which were putting her already high-risk pregnancy at further risk." Elwell went on disability leave. Elwell returned to work in January, she was told she has to take the operartions position that was offered prior to her disability leave, rather than a sales
Evaluation of the interests and reflection based on ethical theories.I will look into the three types of arguments that show discrimination is wrong. This includes Utilitarian, Kantian, and Justice arugments. Utilitarian Arguments: Theres arguments are straight forward and cite the ways discrimination harms individuals, businesses, and society.Job descrimination creates inefficiencies when matching people to jobs. This could be seen in the case when the job as a regional sales manager was given to a man with less experience and expertiese than Ms. Elwell. By chosing him the productivity of Google is harmed. Another argument based on utilitarian eithics focouses on the harm discrimination does to society. When an employeers trys to cut costs by not hiring a handicapped or a pregnant womean, as in the Google case, an externality is created. The savings to the employers and not enough to cover the costs of society when this person has to begin taking a disability or welfare check. Kantian Arguments: These arguments cite human dignity and respect.Discrimination can also be shown as wrong without looking at purely consequences. Discrimination denies individuals the opportunity to fully develop and be treated equally to others. Victims are forced to take lower position jobs or less pay. Additionally they are being deprived of their right, as a human, to be trated with respect. Justice Arugments: Decisions must be justified, do not treat people differently for no good reason.