Sex Discrimination in Organizations

Case study 1. The Sex Discrimination (The Case on Daisy, Jenny and Sonia)

Description of the Sex Discrimination Directive

Organizations and society at large are faced with major challenges in the social ethical norms in the daily transactions. For instance, one of the challenges in the social irresponsibility is sex discrimination. Sex discrimination occurs either directly or indirectly to members of an organization. For instance, it refers to a situation through which a member of one sex is deprived rights and fairness through negative treatment from the rest of the team based on gender. Direct sex discrimination occurs in a case where male and female employees perform same work under similar rank yet male is treated just and awarded more privileges than the female. The European Union Gender Equality directive is important as it ensures that the gender equality is followed in different organization.[1]

The Directive ensures that institutions and companies offer equal treatment to all employees irrespective of the gender that one belongs to. Some of the organization seems to favour the female gender as they give females higher salaries and higher ranked jobs based on female preference from the company while other companies think that females are inferior to males, and so they offer higher ranks and higher salaries to males. Based on the above reasons, gender inequality might happen in some institutions The EU equality law ensures that all people are treated equal and equal production gets equal pay irrespective of the gender one belongs to in different workplaces across Europe. This section of the paper offers three case scenarios to evaluate gender equality in the European Union.

Case Study Evaluation

i) Daisy Case Aimed to Sue the Company Because of Presupposed Sexual Discrimination

Daisy plans to sue her company based on sexual discrimination where she alleges that the company favours Mark based on the mere fact that Mark is male because most of the other factors, such as work production and time both have worked for the company, are relatively the same. Besides, the two workers worked at a section that had a large departmental store where they were mandated to serve at the tills as well as arrange the stocks on arrival to the designated shelves at the department. Both Daisy and Mark worked for the company at a period of ten years although later, Daisy realized that the company offered some favours to Mark and side-lined Daisy, which amounted to sexual discrimination based on Daisy’s claims. Daisy made the claims after she realized that Mark got a Christmas bonus, where the company offered the bonus to selected staff members in the company. According to Daisy, neither she nor her female friends received the bonus from the company. Mark had another favour of receiving an additional weekly payment during a holiday which Daisy never received. The above sentiments contributed to making Daisy accuse the company of sexual orientation.

Evaluation of the Allegations Made by Daisy Based on the EU Law of Sex Discrimination

On Daisy’s favour, Daisy would have won the discrimination case based on the following supportive reasons: Mark and Daisy worked in relative section as well as they had joined and worked for the company for one decade. The Company offered a Christmas Bonus to Mark and other selected members, where the criteria that the company used to make the rewards was unclear. Because the company did not show the reasons that Mark had to deserve the Bonus and the additional holiday week payments, the case would incline to Daisy’s favour from this perspective. Companies need to have criteria to do not portray sexual discrimination and favours to members of a certain gender.[2] Besides, the company might have assumed that male workers are quite productive and they offer extensive services to the company as compared to females, which is a portrayal of sex discrimination and unfairness from the company. The above perspectives would have helped EU judicial systems to rule the case in favour of Daisy in terms of sexual discrimination.

The Judicial systems might rule the case in the favour of the Company based on the following reasons. Mark might have worked hard and offered appealing services to the company that deserved the Christmas bonuses. Besides, the Christmas bonus was given to selected workers, which might have been a promotional and motivational approach to ensure that other workers also work hard to receive such rewards. Besides, it is not illegal and it is advisable for companies to motivate their workers as an approach towards institutional success.[3]

Besides, the company might have used criteria that do not involve any type of sexual discrimination but based on traits such as hard work, dedication, and application of ethical codes of conduct, which is not illegal in a court of law. The portrayal of ethics, good behaviours, and productivity in works is important in making companies reward workers to ensure that other workers follow such traits as they often lead to the success of the organization. Besides, joining a corporation at the same time is not the ultimate measures of production as some people work for extra hours and offer extra services and appeal to offering vibrant services to companies in different ways. In case the company would prove that it used a criterion that was not biased or discriminative, Daisy’s allegations might have been rendered as assumptions, which would have made the company win the case against discriminative practices based on one’s gender.

ii) Jenny’s Case on Discrimination.

The next discrimination case talked about Jenny who accused her employer of gender discriminative based on the company favouring John. Jenny worked in a section of the firm that served clients as well as the ordering of new stock for the company. On the other hand, John worked in a relative section as warehouse manager where he received the ordered merchandise through offloading of the merchandise on arrival.

Jenny expected to receive the same pay as John, although, she later discovered that she and the other female departmental leaders received half the amount that John received as a departmental leader. Jenny accused the case of sex discrimination based on the pay dissimilarity that needed to be relative to all departmental leaders irrespective of one’s gender.

Jenny’s Scenario Evaluation under the EU Sex Discrimination Law

The court would have ruled the case in favour of Jenny based on several aspects of the EU sex discrimination directive. To start with, as John and Jenny played corresponding roles that relied on each other, which is an aspect that made Jenny perceive that the company needed to have given them salaries that were almost the same. Jenny also realized pattern that seemed to underpay female workers. The pattern was evident as all the departmental female heads according to Jenny receive half of what John received. In case John had received a promotion, to earn him his double salary, there might have been other female workers who met the promotion qualification but were not promoted based on the fact that they were female. The equality law in the European Union allows all workers whether male or female to have promotion in case the workers meet the qualification criteria that the firm sets. The EU law (Art 157 TFEU and Directive 2006/54) is an important directive that fights any sex discrimination in workplaces, which happens due to reasons such as organization culture or different organizational concerns. The above points based on the EU article on sex discrimination would have made Jenny win her case against the company on sex discrimination.

In the defense of the company, the company might have won the case against the allegations based on several reasons. One of the reasons that the company would have won the case is that Jenny compares herself to one male employee, who might have received a promotion based on several factors based on the company observations. She never gave an array of male employees who received a double salary as compared to females, which is one probability that would have made judicial systems in the EU to rule the case in the favor of the company. Besides, the equality directive does not rule out companies from paying either double or any amount of salaries to their workers based on aspects of meritocracy. [4] The only time it is wrong to pay high amounts to some of the workers is based on favoritism and discrimination in terms of sex. The EU law (Art 157 TFEU and Directive 2006/54) does not also set salaries that companies need to pay their workers, which might have been an aspect that made the company pay John quite high as compared to Jenny. If companies feel that a certain worker deserves a promotion or has worked harder than other workers, the worker needs to be promoted, the company can do that at will, as long as they do not sideline other workers based on their gender, the above reason would have made the company to win against sexual discrimination.

iii) Sonia’s Scenario

Sonia works part-time employee in her company based on the organizational structure of her organization. As a part-timer, the company excludes her from some of the enjoyed privileges such as the coveted occupational pension scheme. Besides, all part-timers in the company are part-timers, as the company seems to believe that warehouse jobs are somehow technical and are suitable for the male gender as they are quite labouring extensively. However, Sonia applied for an inside warehouse job as she aimed at augmenting her monthly income. Sonia never succeeded as the company advised her that warehouse jobs are male-gender based jobs that she could hardly handle and she felt that she should sue her company based on discrimination.

Sonia’s Evaluation Based on the EU Sex Discrimination Law

The judicial system might rule the discrimination case in the favour of Sonia based on several factors. Firstly, the company seems to undervalue female workers as it has all its part-time employees as females. It is wrong to make all females to work as part-timers as it is discrimination that undervalues women.[5]

Besides, the company seemed to favour males as it gave them the warehouse jobs as workers of the firm, which entitled them to pension scheme benefits among other merits of being an employee of a certain institution.

On the other hand, the company would win against sex discrimination based on several factors. One of the reason is that some jobs are labour intensive and requires much effort to carrying heavy objects, where most of the females would experience difficulties in working.[6] Women working as part-timers of the company would be viable if only the part-time jobs used less labour intensiveness. The above reasons if argued articulated in a court of law might have prompted the court to rule in the favour of the firm.

Case Study: Question Three on the European Union Law on Damaged Competition

Article 101 TFUE (The European Union Law on Damaged Competition)

Article 101 TFEU covers issues of competition in European Union. The article addresses damaged competition, which is an important focus that ensures businesses do not damage competition and the businesses in different places in the European region operate on fairgrounds. This EU competition aims at ensuring the domestic competition is effective as the law remedies complainants from damaged interests. Damaged interests and damaged competition often arises from businesses applying anti-competitive behaviours that seem to infringe market operations in the European Union.[7] The EU competition law also aims at maintaining transparency in the European markets to ensure that firms operate fairly in the European markets.[8] The law intends to implement unity through transparency in the market.[9] Transparency is an important element that exterminates unfair advantage that might favour some of the companies in carrying out business operations in the European Union. The EU law further maintains economic efficiency as the marketplaces where business operations take place have conditions that ensure the competition is fair as well as the services offered are good, reliable and of good quality to the customers. The law also ensures that customers are protected as they play a crucial role in ensuring that business operations take place effectively. This section of the paper evaluates the EU law on competition as well as gives some of the case scenarios that the EU might consider an infringement of the EU law and some of the infringing cases that the EU might not render as an infringement to the European competition law renowned as Article 101 TFEU.

Evaluation of Article 101 TFEU

Article 101 TFEU shapes business activities to reduce damages for competition as well as ensure that there is healthy competition among businesses. EU laws aim at integrating internal markets in the region to ensure that there is good economic status in the countries of the region. The European law on business competition is an important law that safeguards the welfares of consumers. Some businesses operations might be exorbitant to consumers for example setting of high prices or taking advantage of monopoly to extort consumers.[10] It is wrong and unethical to extort consumers as consumers are the primary target audience of business operations across the EU and the globe. The EU law on competition renders consumer extortion of any format to be damaged competition as the safeguarding of the welfare of consumers is one of the primary aims of the EU competition law.

The EU completion law ensures that firms devise effective competition through healthy aspects such as marketing, branding and persuasive approaches. Healthy competition is an important aspect that ensures robust economic growth in a region as the firms in the region work towards improving the services offered to the consumers.[11] The EU is important as it renders unhealthy competition among firms to be damaged competition. The other part of the EU law ensures that firms compete freely, which is important in ensuring that firms offer good services in the EU region. In a place where some of the firms have an advantage in terms of competing, it is quite hard to ensure that customers get the right services as well as the customer needs and welfare is taken good care of in the EU. Damaged completion is also unfair and unethical, which is one of the aspects that the EU law on damaged competition aims at reducing in the EU region markets.

One can trace the EU law from the ordoliberal analogical viewpoint. Ordoliberals had the notion that competition is a necessity to ensure that there is robust economic growth. a necessary a necessity that ensures there is an economic development that further creates a free market economy.[12]

The EU competition law aims at reducing aspects that hinder ethical competition in the EU zone. The predominant businesses in a region often referred to as economic giants should operate without affecting other small businesses in the market, which is important as t ensures that there is fairness in business operations. EU law on competition ensures that ensures that business activities favour both large dominant large companies and small businesses simultaneously.[13] Most of the large firms are attractive and often attract consumers although the EU law on competition is important as it ensures that there is no firm that has the unfair advantage of operation as compared to other firms irrespective of size and dominance. The EU competition law gives protection to small and medium-sized enterprises SMEs. The small and medium-sized enterprises need protectable as they have feeble stability in the markets as compared to the giant operators of the market.

Damage Competition Conduct that Could be Justified

Some business laws might infringe the damaged competition law although one might justify some of the infringing case scenarios. A good example is a firm being acquitted of over setting high prices that might infringe customer relations by monopolizing the customers.[14] Firms use different production processes that cost the firms different production costs. In case one of the business in the European Union faces allegations of affecting customer relations by high prices, the firm can prove that their production method is quite costly and the prices aimed at making profits and returns to the firm based on the input of the firm. Arguments that prove that the firm used high production cost relative to the price set of products is a damaged competition that one might justify.

Another example would be small business closing down and blaming the big business for their closure. Damaged competition is one of the causes of poor performances to small business in case some of the big businesses adopted some unethical approaches.[15]

However, SMEs and small business might close down due to poor business operation strategies, poor marketing of poor customer relations. The business might focus on the operations of the big firms and accuse the big firms of unethical practices, which might be justified as damaged practices from large firms is not the only cause that makes small businesses to close down. Firms need to ensure that they have the right strategies and right requirements to ensure that there is an effective product that is independent of the production of other firms in the irrespective of the size. Based on the above reasons, some of the business operations that the U laws might consider to be damaged competition might be justified in different case scenarios.

Bibliography

O Brouwer, J Goyder and D Mes, ‘Developments in EC competition law in 2007: An overview’ [2008] 45 Common Market Law Review 1167-1205

D Cuypers, ‘The Challenges of EU Discrimination Law for Old Labour Law’ [2013] SSRN Electronic Journal.

Evelyn Ellis, ‘Recent Developments in European Community Sex Equality Law’ [April 1998] Common Market Law Review 379-408.

N Foster, ‘Ensuring EU Laws Are Effective: Remedies and Article 267 TFEU’ Foster on EU Law (3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 7 July 2011)

S Hargreaves and M Homewood, ‘Preliminary rulings: Article 267 TFEU. EU Law Concentrate’ EU Law Concentrate: Law Revision and Study Guide (5th

edition, Oxford University Press, 2013) 45–61.

M Homewood, ‘EU competition law: introduction and Article 101 TFEU’ EU Law Concentrate: Law Revision and Study Guide (5th

edition, Oxford University Press, 2013) 45–61.

Kristina Koldinská, ‘Case law of the European Court of Justice on sex discrimination 2006-2011’ [2011] 48 Common Market Law Review 1599-1638

C Marzo, ‘Legal Risks in EU Social Law’ Legal Risks in EU Law (1st

edition, Kogan Page, 2016) 165–182.

N Petit and N Neyrinck, ‘Behavioral Economics and Abuse of Dominance – A Fresh Look at the Article 102 TFEU Case-Law’ [2010] SSRN Electronic Journal

J Rivas and F Stroud, ‘Developments in EC competition law in 2001: An overview’. [October 2002] Common Market Law Review 1101-1145.

J Shaw, ‘Between Law and Political Truth? Member State Preferences, EU Free Movement Rules and National Immigration Law’ [2015] SSRN Electronic Journal

M Travis, ‘Accommodating Intersexuality in European Union Anti-Discrimination Law [2014] 21 European Law Journal 180-199.

S Weatherill, ‘Beyond Discrimination: Article 34 TFEU’ Cases and Materials on EU Law (12th edition, Oxford University Press, 2012) 315–358.

A Weyembergh, ‘The Development of Eurojust: Potential and Limitations of Article 85 of the TFEU’[2011] 2 New Journal of European Criminal Law 75-99.

L Woods and P Watson, ‘Derogation From the Free Movement Of Goods’ Steiner & Woods EU Law (12th edition, Oxford University Press, 2014) 409–425.

[1] M Travis, ‘Accommodating Intersexuality in European Union Anti-Discrimination Law [2014] 21 European Law Journal 180

[2] N Foster, ‘Ensuring EU Laws Are Effective: Remedies and Article 267 TFEU’ Foster on EU Law (3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 7 July 2011) 112

[3] S Hargreaves and M Homewood, ‘Preliminary rulings: Article 267 TFEU. EU Law Concentrate’ EU Law Concentrate: Law Revision and Study Guide (5th

edition, Oxford University Press, 2013) 45

[4]Kristina Koldinská, ‘Case law of the European Court of Justice on sex discrimination 2006-2011’ [2011] 48 Common Market Law Review 1599

[5] D Cuypers, ‘The Challenges of EU Discrimination Law for Old Labour Law’ [2013] SSRN Electronic Journal 11

[6] Evelyn Ellis, ‘Recent Developments in European Community Sex Equality Law’ [April 1998] Common Market Law Review 379

[7] S Weatherill, ‘Beyond Discrimination: Article 34 TFEU’ Cases and Materials on EU Law (12th edition, Oxford University Press, 2012) 315.

[8] J Shaw ‘Between Law and Political Truth? Member State Preferences, EU Free Movement Rules and National Immigration Law’ [2015] SSRN Electronic Journal 7

[9] J Rivas and F Stroud ‘Developments in EC competition law in 2001: An overview’. [October 2002] Common Market Law Review, 1101

[10] N Petit and N Neyrinck, ‘Behavioral Economics and Abuse of Dominance – A Fresh Look at the Article 102 TFEU Case-Law’ [2010] SSRN Electronic Journal 4

[11] L Woods and P Watson, ‘Derogation from the free movement of goods’ Steiner & Woods EU Law (12th edition, Oxford University Press, 2014) 409

[12] A Weyembergh, ‘The Development of Eurojust: Potential and Limitations of Article 85 of the TFEU’[2011] 2 New Journal of European Criminal Law 75

[13] N Petit and N Neyrinck, ‘Behavioral Economics and Abuse of Dominance – A Fresh Look at the Article 102 TFEU Case-Law’ [2010] SSRN Electronic Journal 8

[14] C Marzo ‘Legal Risks in EU Social Law’ Legal Risks in EU Law (1st

edition, Kogan Page, 2016) 165

[15] O Brouwer, J Goyder and D Mes, ‘Developments in EC competition law in 2007: An overview’ [2008] 45 Common Market Law Review 1167