In the Week Three Assignment, you engaged in a case analysis of a current business problem using some of the components of an argumentative essay. In this written assignment, you will write a complete argumentative essay as described in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Foster, Hardy, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). This essay will include a revised and polished version of your Week Three Assignment, an objection to your thesis, a rebuttal, and concluding remarks. In order to benefit the most, you should start working on your Final Project from the time you receive your Week Three Assignment back with comments from your professor.
Your assignment should include the following:
A revision of your Week Three Case Analysis Assignment. Your revision should represent a substantial edit of your work that fully incorporates feedback from your professor and goes well beyond correcting any grammatical or APA errors.
The strongest possible objection to your thesis. After the final paragraph of your Week Three Case Analysis Assignment, start a new paragraph that introduces the strongest possible objection to your thesis. The considerations for this are detailed in Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). Make sure to employ the appropriate language to introduce the objection, such as ?some may object to my thesis as follows? or ?according to [so and so] the thesis presented here fails to account for X? [whatever he or she finds problematic]. You can find other language to do this, of course, but the key point here is to make sure that you indicate that someone else is speaking when presenting this objection.
It is also important to remember that you do research to discover good objections and not merely objections that are weak and thus easily rebutted. Look for peer-reviewed journal articles in the Ashford University Library, full-text articles in Google Scholar, or articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Present the opposing position fairly and in detail. This may take more than one paragraph.
A rebuttal. This is a refutation of the objection that you have just presented. Start this in a new paragraph following the objection paragraph(s). Once again, follow the indications of Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). You may point out an error in the objection. Or you may show that, while it is an important objection, it does not apply squarely to your argument, or does not account for facts that make it irrelevant. Above all, make sure to maintain philosophical decorum in your rebuttal. Toward this end, you should apply the principles of charity and of accuracy, first introduced in the Week One course material. See ?Confronting Disagreement? in Section 9.4 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015).
Closing remarks. End your argumentative essay with a paragraph of closing remarks. Provide some reflections of what you have attempted to achieve by means of your essay. You could, for example, explain how your essay sheds light on the broader controversy that it addresses. Or you could point out how your essay addresses a frequently ignored point or the unpopular side in the controversy. You could also reflect on the related matters in the broader controversy that would be useful to examine by others. Do not merely summarize what you have done in the body of your essay, and do not add new information here that would support or contradict your essay since the body of your essay should have addressed all the relevant points. See ?Closing Your Essay? in Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo (2015).
Requirements for your Assignment:
- Your assignment should bebetween 1500 to 1700 wordsin length, excluding the cover and references pages.
- Your examination should be both thorough and succinct. This is a combination that demands time and thought, so give yourself sufficient time to draft and revise.
- Your assignment should include citations, as well as a list of references. Both must be in APA form.
- Your references should includeat least four peer-reviewed articles in addition to those that you will be carrying over from our Week Three Case Analysis Assignment.These references should be drawn from the Ashford University Library, Google Scholar, or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Your assignment should be submittedno later than the end of Monday (midnight, U.S. Mountain time).
Running Head: GENDER DISCRIMINATION Gender Discrimination
Personal & Organizational Ethics
Professor Kristine Ouzts
8 August 2016 GENDER DISCRIMINATION 2 Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
The case of Lily Ledbetter versus Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company was one of the
biggest cases involving sex-related discrimination that we have seen since the women?s rights
movements. Unfortunately, this case proved that what women had worked so hard for was still
not being given to them, even in 2006, almost 100 years later from the bulk of the movement. All
she wanted was the payment that she deserved, which was equal to that of her co-workers.
Instead, she was discriminated against by her workplace and the rules in put in place by the Civil
Rights Act, which was made to help people, betrayed her. As a result, her case was overturned by
one of the Supreme Court?s most controversial decisions (Oyez). If she had not been a
courageous woman to stand up to this discrimination and to depict the faults and unfairness that
resides within our legal system, women would have probably continued working without equal
payment and treatment as their male counterparts with little resistance.
Lily Ledbetter was an average person who decided to start working at Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Company in 1979 in Gadsden Alabama, in a union plant. She managed to work herself
up to the position of Area Manager, a position that many of her male counterparts shared. After
many years of working in this position for Goodyear, she received notice that she was being
underpaid and a comparison of her salary versus that of a male counterpart in the same position (Cooke). After digging up more evidence to back up this theory that she was being underpaid, GENDER DISCRIMINATION 3 she discovered that it was true. The reviews also made of her which helped to determine pay she
found discriminatory to her gender, seeing that they were paying her less money simply due to
the fact that she was a woman (Oyez). She then made the decision to bring Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Co. to court in an effort to receive recompense for her work. Little did she know that she
was starting a revolutionary cause.
In her district court case against Goodyear, which was held in the Northern District Court
of Alabama. In this case, she claimed that the reviews and payment she received were directly
discriminatory against her gender and that she deserved to be paid fairly. Goodyear?s defense
was that her claims were not filed in the 180 statutory period required for such suits to be filed (Cooke). The district court found in favor of Ledbetter, saying that the reviews and payment she
received while working there were indeed discriminatory and she was rewarded $360,000. It had
seemed that she was rightfully awarded this money and that the case was over. However, the
case was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of U.S. Appeals, who reversed the lower court?s
ruling without taking Goodyear?s position fully (Oyez). But this was not good enough for
Ledbetter or Goodyear, so it was appealed all the way up to the big house. The U.S. Supreme
Court, where nine justices would painstakingly research everything needed to make a just and
fair decision on the case. Or so you think they would.
On November 27th, 2006, the Supreme Court conducted an oral argument around the
case, which can only be imagined to have been quite the intriguing conversation. Almost one
year later, May 27th, 2007, a decision was made (Cooke). A 5-4 ruling that sided with Goodyear
saying that Ledbetter?s claims were indeed not filed in the statutory period of 180 days, which
was established by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (?Supreme Court Online?). The GENDER DISCRIMINATION 4 Civil Rights Act was a public law passed in 1964 that forbade the ?discrimination on the basis of
sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing.?. However, the law stated that all suits that
were going to be filed claiming for discrimination in a workplace had to be done within 180 days
of the alleged act of discrimination (Teaching With). This was the true determining factor of the
Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. case, which also remains one of the most
controversial rulings by the Supreme Court in the most recent years.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. ignited Lily Ledbetter?s flame after she
received news of the ruling the Supreme Court made. She then spoke in front of the Education
and Labor Committee as they pondered the possibility of reversing the Supreme Court?s
decision. She stated in her address that the ruling by the S.C. was ?unjust, unfair and wrong? as
it allowed such discrimination to continue (YouTube). After further fighting, she managed to get
a bill all the way up to Congress, who passed the bill, which made amendments to the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as well as stating 5 other sections about discrimination in the work place and
how it affects other laws (S. 181). Upon entering office for his first term, President Barack
Obama made the Lily Ledbetter Act of 2009 his first bill signed into action on January 29, 2009,
4 years ago from this past Tuesday (The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act). In doing so, he righted the
wrongs created by the Supreme Court?s decision on the case and granted rights to those who
were being discriminated against.
To many, this bill does not affect them. Many are against it as well and believe that
discrimination should be allowed as women apparently cannot work as well as men and therefore
them along with their inferior selves should not be on an equal payroll as those in their same
position of male descent. As for me, I believe it is a great things that prohibits discrimination in GENDER DISCRIMINATION 5 workplaces, hopefully sending us on a path towards greatly equality amongst all people,
regardless of age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc? It was also a major jump for our
court system as they may have now realized that some laws are not fit for use in the justice
system and may recommend such laws to be taken down from the books so that another unfair
and unjust decision such as that made in this case will be ruled again. As for those discriminated
against everywhere, it is possibly one of the biggest effects in their lives, as they could now sue
for discrimination and hopefully receive the money they rightfully deserve. GENDER DISCRIMINATION 6 References: Cooke, Kelley, and Heidi Guetschow. ?Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (051074).? LII. Cornell, n.d. Web. 30 Jan. 2013. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/05- 1074>
LEDBETTER v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY. The Oyez Project at
IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 19 January 2013. <http://oyez.org/cases/2000- 2009/2006/2006_05_1074>.
?LEDBETTER v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.? LEDBETTER v. GOODYEAR
TIRE & RUBBER CO. Cornell, 27 Nov. 2006. Web. 28 Jan. 2013. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1074.ZS.html>
?Supreme Court Online.? Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. Duke, n.d.
Web. 30 Jan. 2013. <http://web.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2006/ledvgoo.html>
?S. 181 (111th): Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.? GovTrack.us. The U.S., n.d. Web. 31 Jan. 2013.
?Teaching With Documents:The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Jan. 2013. <http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/>
?The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.? Lilly Ledbetter. N.p., 2011. Web. 31 Jan. 2013. GENDER DISCRIMINATION ?v. Goodyear Equal Pay Hearing: Lilly Ledbetter.? YouTube. YouTube, 14 June 2007.
Web. 31 Jan. 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRpYoUu5XH0> 7
Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card . All your purchases are securely protected by .
About this QuestionSTATUS
Oct 14, 2020EXPERT
We have top-notch tutors who can do your essay/homework for you at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments.
You can also use these solutions:
- As a reference for in-depth understanding of the subject.
- As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced)
- For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution's definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase).
STUCK WITH YOUR PAPER?
Order New Solution. Quick Turnaround
Click on the button below in order to Order for a New, Original and High-Quality Essay Solutions. New orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.
WE GUARANTEE, THAT YOUR PAPER WILL BE WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH AND WITHIN A DEADLINE.