Introduction
In contemporary society, despite having made a big step towards creating equal opportunities for both men and women, we still find that women are generally discriminated against in the workplace. The reasons that are given for failure to give women equal chances are generally not sound enough and cannot be relied upon for decision-making. Women still face gender discrimination based on sex. There are no clear explanations as to the reasons that make them be discriminated against. Probably we are still leaving in a male-dominated society and that the equality clauses are just but formalities to mask the real situation as in many cases men are preferred to women. Women are concentrated in the bottom jobs in most cases with very few in the top jobs (Brown and Joseph 6).
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was established in 1964 to look into the cases where there is possible discrimination on employment and/ or in the workplace based on race, sex, or gender (Milakovich and George 349). There are guidelines on how one who may feel victimized based on discrimination should file a case with the EEOC. After these requirements are fulfilled, one can proceed and file a lawsuit against the person who discriminated against the complaint.
Discussion
For our case, the attorney (Meghan) could have filed a case with the EEOC because there was clear evidence that she had been subjected to discrimination, in her pursuit to be confirmed as a partner.
According to the stipulations of the EEOC, she could only file for her recent discrimination. Discrimination upon her joining the firm, the days that are stipulated (180) had passed and so there could be no successful suit (DeLaat 43) since she had worked in the firm for six years.
In the instance of filing a lawsuit first in the state if it had anti-discrimination rules would also work against her. The courts were limited to only interpreting the selection procedure and not to interfere with the authority of the employer on the selection criterion used. Again the courts owe the partners the privilege of not interfering with their decisions as to who to employ. They are thus limited to the comparison of those who are employed and those who are not, but not making a sentence against the decisions that have been made by the employer, who in this case, is Wilson, Barnes, or proving that the male counterparts were favored at the expense of the lady (Meghan).
She also had the option of filing a case with the EEOC, without necessarily filing a legal case against the discriminating employer. This would not have been possible because the charges must have been presented first in a state court with the anti-discrimination law, and in turn, the court must terminate the processing of the charge (DeLaat 45). The higher possibility is that she could not have obtained justice and at the same time the court would refrain from sentencing where the decisions of the employer are involved. Again, for charges to be filed with the EEOC there must be a preceding lawsuit with a court of law as required by the EEOC.
The other legal position for filing a case would be based on negative comments that she was subjected to by a certain male attorney in that firm. The problem would be that the male attorney had left the firm by the time the decision was made to deny her the status of a partner. This would mean a lack of sufficient evidence to support her case based on this violation. Therefore, the EECPO would not have helped her appropriately, the way she could have expected to get justice. For a case to be successful there must be sufficient and tangible evidence supporting ones’ claims so that justice can be served.
There was, however, a good reason for Meghan to file a lawsuit with the EEOC from the decisions and the reasons given by her employer regarding her failure to reach the standards for attaining the partnership level, which exhibited discrimination. She was as qualified as the male partners. Though the number of women was less relative to that of men, which could have been perceived as discrimination against women, women had more days to achieve the same time, to qualify to be a partner, than that of men. There were provisions, however, allowing this and so she should have filed for a lawsuit.
Besides all the formalities that were required and the limited days for the suit to be filed with the EEOC, the last incidence of discrimination based on sex was a sound reason for Meghan to file a lawsuit with the EEOC. She had the right and the opportunity to file because the case was in the right number of stipulated days by the EEOC for filing a legal suit. The EEOC could have been of great help to Meghan and other people who are victimized based on gender.
This way, the EEOC could have proved of great importance and commitment to its duties by solving this case and granting Meghan, the victim, the justice by reprimanding the employer (Wilson, Barnes) to provide sound reasons as to the reasons why she was not recommended for the post of partnership despite having qualified just as the other male counterparts who were recommended. Again, those male counterparts who had been recommended before this incidence despite having a wrong track record in their work, but Meghan, having no wrong track record, was denied the chance to rise in her career.
Conclusion
Gender discrimination in the workplace is not a new thing in society. It is based on discriminating the minority based on gender and sex, race (minority group discrimination). Women are continually subjected to this type of discrimination based on sex, where their fellow male counterparts are favored at their expense making them fail to rise in their careers.
The EEOC is an organization that was established to mitigate the instances of discrimination of minority groups, either in the initial employment or in the rise of careers in an organization. The case of Meghan is a good example of gender discrimination where she was denied the recommendation to become a partner in a law firm she had been working in for the last seven years.
She was as qualified as her fellow male counterparts but she was not recommended and the reasons that were given for that decision were not sound enough and this portrayed gender discrimination in the workplace. She had good proof to file a case but was left in a dilemma of whether to sue the firm (her employer), to quit and move on to another firm or just remain and accept her position. She should have sued the firm for discrimination and denial of the opportunity to rise in her career, and this way the EEOC would have demonstrated its role well in defending the rights of the minority groups and bringing equality in the workplace.
Works Cited
Brown Clair, & Joseph Pechman (Eds). Gender in the Workplace. New York: Brooking Institution Press, 1987. Print.
DeLaat Jacqueline. Gender in the Workplace: a case study approach. 2nd Ed. New York: SAGE Publication, 2007. Print.
Milakovich Michael, & George Gordon (Eds). Public Administration in America. 10th Ed. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print.