[solution] »

In the Week Three Assignment, you engaged in a case analysis of a current business problem using

Description

Answer Download

The Question

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

 

Ashley Cross

 

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

 

About this Question

STATUS

Answered

QUALITY

Approved

DATE ANSWERED

Oct 14, 2020

EXPERT

Tutor

ANSWER RATING

BEST TUTORS

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).

This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student.

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.