Recently in the US news, a petition was circulated to rename Washington D.C.’s Margaret Murray Washington Career High School after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The effort is supported by many people due to RBG’s fight for equality for all which has made an enormous impact on American society and culture. This move reflects the power dynamics present in the US today when it comes to politics and creating social change – especially with respect to promoting diversity and challenging existing power hierarchies. As stated by Coretta Scott King: “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults” — this sentiment speaks volumes as we strive towards a better future where everyone is respected equally regardless of their background or identity.
Related to the mini-case discussed in class today: Is non-discrimination on the basis of classifications such as those protected under in the EEOC reading a fundamental universal right, regardless of the country/location/culture/religious context of a business or its home country? Or is such non-discrimination variable as a right, depending on culture, etc.? What if customers in a particular country or culture have a discriminatory preference-for example, if customers in a particular industry or culture statistically have a greater preference for interaction with someone of a specific gender, race, nationality, etc.? Should companies be permitted to consider such a customer preference in their hiring and employment practices? Why or why not?
Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. I believe that this should be enforced regardless of the country/location/culture/religious context of a business or its home country.
In the case, “Protecting Against Birth Defects”, discussed in class, the company had policies that prohibited women without proof of infertility from working with chemicals associated with birth defects. I disagree with the policy of this company because it discriminates on the basis of gender. Although the risks associated with the children of women working around these chemicals was higher, the offspring’s of men also faced similar risks. It is unfair to have this policy in place only for women. A fair policy would have been demanding proof of infertility irrespective of gender. The company will need to protect itself from future litigations if a child was born with defects. Although the company could have clearly stated the risks involved to all employees regarding birth defects, it does not protect the company against future lawsuits by th
