Ethics of Gender Identity Discrimination at Work

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Stakeholder Analysis
The Transgender Community
The Employer
Human Rights Groups
Analysis of the Ethical Dilemma Using Virtue Ethics
Conclusion and Recommendations
References

An organization needs to uphold the essence of ethical standards to realize effective and efficient operations. In the workplace setting, ethical dilemmas arise from various issues. Thus, the employer and employees, among other stakeholders, need to manage such situations in the most appropriate way (VanMeter, Grisaffe, Chonko, & Roberts, 2013). The appropriate handling of ethical dilemmas curtails the emergence of conflicts that can undermine the realization of beneficial interactions within the workplace environment. Nonetheless, the ethical dilemma may present opportunities for the organization to flourish. In this respect, ethical dilemmas present both positive and negative implications to the performance of an organization. They prompt the consideration of various ethical theories to facilitate an in-depth understanding of such controversial situations. Through the integration of ethical theories such as Kantianism, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics, one gains an understanding of the perspectives of the various stakeholders that the ethical dilemma affects.

The issue of gender identity discrimination poses an ethical dilemma in the workplace environment. In particular, gender identity discrimination has led to the termination of the employment contracts of transgender employees or those seeking to undergo a transition of their gender (Ozturk & Tatli, 2016). In some instances, employers can deny transgender workers access to utilities, including the restroom. Conversely, accommodating the transgender employee in the organization is also a move that the employer may consider in handling the ethical dilemma. As such, the sacking of a transgender employee raises ethical issues when viewed from different perspectives. Besides, ethical theories such as virtue ethics facilitate an understanding of the ethical impasse of whether to terminate the contract of transgender employees or embrace their sexual identity in the workplace environment. In this respect, this paper argues that the issue of sexual identity discrimination is an ethical dilemma that affects various stakeholders in the workplace environment, including employees, employers, human rights groups, and the transgender community.

Stakeholder Analysis

The sexual identity discrimination issue affects various stakeholders within and outside the workplace surroundings. It is important to note that contemporary society has mixed perceptions regarding transgender society as some groups agitate for the recognition of sexuality in various settings while others undermine people’s sexual identity. In this view, the mistreatment of transgender employees in the workplace environment not only affects people of such a sexual identity but also various other parties, including other employees of different sexuality, as well as the public.

The Transgender Community

The transgender community is one of the key stakeholders affected by the issue of sexual identity discrimination in the workplace surroundings. It is important to note that transgender sexual orientation is not common. Thus, most heterosexual individuals have varying perceptions about this particular sexual identity (Bailey, 2014). The decision to terminate the employment contract of a transgender employee denotes that the employer has a different view of the worker’s sexual identity. As a result, the perception of employers regarding the sexual orientation of transgender employees shows that they regard these individuals as unfit for the workplace environment, owing to the popularity and acceptability of the heterosexual or homosexual orientation (Connell, 2014). Thus, the decision to sack a transgender employee undermines the rights and freedoms of the members of this community. In essence, the unfair treatment of such employees hinders the realization of equality among individuals with diverse sexual orientations in the organizational setting.

On the other hand, acknowledging sexual orientation differences in the organizational setting goes a long way in upholding and protecting the rights of the vulnerable transgender community. An employer who chooses to embrace individuals of different sexual orientations shows the extent to which they respect their sexuality besides regarding them as competent professionals. Thus, the decision not to sack a transgender employee due to the uniqueness of their sexuality shows that the corporate world is embracing diversity along the lines of sexual orientation. As such, the ethical decision would be much welcomed by members of the transgender community.

The Employer

The employer is also an important stakeholder in the sexual identity discrimination issue. In the described situation, the employer is torn between ending the contract of the transgender employee and offering support that can foster the worker’s productivity (Priola, Lasio, De Simone, & Serri, 2014). Undoubtedly, an array of factors may prompt an employer to perceive a transgender employee or one who is intending to transition to the mentioned gender identity as unfit to be given a job position. The possibility of customers developing a negative perception of the company after realizing that the employee is transgender may prompt the employer to consider replacing the stereotyped individual with another one of the heterosexual orientation. Thus, the employer may not regard the ethical decision as a negative employment action since it seeks to protect the interest of the industry. Furthermore, the employer may demonstrate the perceived gender identity discrimination as a way of improving the interpersonal relationships of employees in case the presence of a transgender employee weakens the productivity of other workers (Bailey, 2014). Therefore, to a considerable extent, the employment action is justified from the perspective of the employer as it seeks to protect the organization’s interests.

Conversely, the employer demonstrates a negative employment action by mistreating employees based on their gender identity. Provided the identified transgender employees perform their roles and responsibilities in line with their job description besides meeting the set targets, it is regarded unwarranted to discriminate against them based on their sexual orientation. The action is discriminative since everyone is entitled to sexual privileges. Thus, undermining individuals’ right to sexuality not only harasses them but also creates unmerited stigma (Ozturk & Tatli, 2016). For this reason, besides transgender employees, other members of the LGBT identity who feel excluded in the workplace environment develop a stigma.

Human Rights Groups

Negative employment actions subjected to transgender individuals also attract the attention of human rights groups as key stakeholders in the ethical issue. Notably, activists usually agitate for the need to protect the rights of the LGBT amid their gender identity differences (Brewster, Velez, Mennicke, & Tebbe, 2014). For this reason, concerned groups such as the Human Rights Watch works with transgender people to foster the protection of their privileges in different environments. Such groups also advocate for the establishment of laws that protect vulnerable gender identities. For this reason, the United States (U.S.) federal government established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to foster the protection of the rights of different and multiple vulnerable groups such as the transgender group in the workplace environment (Bailey, 2014).

The move by an organization to terminate the employment contract of transgender employees subjects them to poverty. The National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS) uncovers that at least 15% of transgender people live in impoverished conditions, owing to the discrimination they experience in the workplace environment (Bailey, 2014). They end up being fired because of their sexual orientation. Thus, human rights groups see the importance of establishing legal provisions that protect individuals from negative employment actions conducted by employers.

Analysis of the Ethical Dilemma Using Virtue Ethics

The virtue theory of ethics underlines the need for the development of a character that leads an ethical life. In this respect, individuals need to embrace virtues that facilitate the creation of a personality that upholds the importance of doing the right actions in various situations and environments. In particular, virtue ethics underlines the need for an individual to uphold virtues that include wisdom, fortitude, justice, compassion, courage, and temperance since they foster the development of a righteous character (Russell, 2013). Importantly, virtue principles seek to realize the ultimate goal of eudemonia translated into the good life, well-being, or happiness. Furthermore, the ethical theory underlines the need for an individual to avoid vices such as greed, self-centeredness, inequality, and resentment (Bright, Winn, & Kanov, 2014). The vices undermine the ability of individuals to realize happiness or an improvement of their well-being.

The wisdom virtue fosters the realization of happiness. In this view, an employer who demonstrates negative employment practices founded on gender identity discrimination is perceived to lack wisdom. In line with virtue ethics, the middle ground needs to be identified before making a decision (Bright, Winn, & Kanov, 2014). In this case, the employer should have assessed whether it is wise or foolish to terminate the employment agreement of the employee on the grounds of gender identity. The employer may be viewing the ethical decision as wise since it facilitates the protection of the company’s interest. However, concerned parties such as the transgender community and human rights groups regard the decision as an act of cowardice since it undermines the well-being or happiness of transgender people. Therefore, since the greatest majority identify the employment action as a vice rather than a virtue, the decision is considered unethical since it undermines the well-being of the employee with different gender identity from the rest of the individuals in the workplace environment (Vardaman, Gondo, & Allen, 2014).

Justice is a virtue that facilitates the development of a morally upright character (Russell, 2013). Thus, the employer faced with the ethical dilemma needs to demonstrate a decision that upholds justice. Importantly, the virtue of justice underlines the need for fairness and equality. Therefore, the employer needs to make an employment decision that is fair to all workers irrespective of their sexual inclinations. Nonetheless, the decision turns to be unfair since it prevents transgender employees from enjoying the benefits of equal employment opportunities. As such, with reference to virtue ethics, it would be an injustice and hence a vice to sack any employee based on their sexual orientation.

The lack of legal provisions that protect vulnerable gender identities, such as individuals of the transgender orientation, encourages the prevalence of employment injustices (Bailey, 2014). As a result, human rights groups condemn the vice of discriminating against employees on the grounds of gender differences by agitating for the establishment of laws that foster fairness and equality in the workplace setting. Additionally, undermining such vices from creating a discriminative workplace environment requires organizations to establish ethical codes that bolster the fair treatment of individuals with diverse gender identities. The code of ethics will be integral in guiding ethical decision-making processes in situations such as the one analyzed in the current paper.

Compassion is a virtue that also builds a character that fosters the improvement of other people’s well-being. A character founded on compassion shows concern for the sufferings of other individuals (Russell, 2013). Notably, transgender people experience considerable suffering experiences in the workplace environment, as demonstrated in the employment action dilemma. In this concern, virtue ethics expects individuals to show love and care towards parties that experience misfortunes or sufferings. Therefore, the employer needs to show awareness regarding the middle ground between compassion and animosity in handling the ethical dilemma. However, the act of sacking the transgender employee denotes a considerable degree of hostility and cruelty to civilization. Such vices destroy the well-being of an individual. Thus, they are considered immoral.

The attribute of fortitude also contributes to the development of a character that supports an ethical life. An individual demonstrating fortitude is courageous in instances of adversity or pain (Russell, 2013). As such, the transgender community needs to demonstrate courage despite experiencing the pain of discrimination in the workplace setting. For this reason, courageous individuals of the transgender identity seek employment in organizations dominated by heterosexual individuals (Bailey, 2014). Therefore, transgender people should not allow the vice of cowardice and timidity to overwhelm them amid the gender identity adversities they encounter in various environments. Nonetheless, some employers portray timidity in dealing with gender issues in the corporate settings, thus failing to show courage towards working with employees from diverse gender backgrounds (Connell, 2014). In this respect, there is the need for organizations to develop a character of fortitude that allows them to embrace the adversities of others besides providing encouragement.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Ethical dilemmas arise from an array of situations in different environments, including the workplace setting. The employment action of whether to terminate the contract of a transgender employee or not is one of the ethical dilemmas that employers face in contemporary corporate settings. This dilemma has implications for key stakeholders, including the transgender community, employers, and human rights groups. The transgender community is a victim of gender discrimination in the workplace environment. Unemployment makes the group vulnerable to poverty. Employers are the major perpetrators of the vice in the name of protecting their self-interest in the business world. Human rights groups conduct advocacy campaigns aimed at establishing laws that protect the privileges of the transgender community. The virtue ethics theory underlines the need for developing a character that promotes a moral life.

However, in most cases, employers who discriminate against employees based on their gender identities denote the dominance of vices over virtues. Thus, there is the need to change the situation in a way that promotes the creation of workplace environments that are founded on virtues that promote morality. In this respect, organizations need to uphold virtues such as justice, fortitude, and compassion to enhance the ethical aspects of workplace surroundings. By so doing, the organization will foster the realization of gender equality in the workplace setting and consequently the effectiveness and efficiency of ethical decision-making processes. Besides, there is the need for the establishment of legal frameworks that protect vulnerable gender identities from discrimination in the workplace environment. The legal frameworks will provide the foundation for the inclusion of gender equality issues in an organization’s code of ethics. The move will foster the realization of fair treatment regardless of one’s gender identity.

References

Bailey, M. (2014). Transgender workplace discrimination in the age of gender dysphoria and ENDA. Law & Psychol. Rev., 38, 193-193.

Brewster, M., Velez, B., Mennicke, A., & Tebbe, E. (2014). Voices from beyond: A thematic content analysis of transgender employees’ workplace experiences. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(2), 159-169.

Bright, D. S., Winn, B. A., & Kanov, J. (2014). Reconsidering virtue: Differences of perspective in virtue ethics and the positive social sciences. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(4), 445-460.

Connell, C. (2014). Transgender employment experiences: Gendered perceptions and the law. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 43(5), 662-663.

Ozturk, M. B., & Tatli, A. (2016). Gender identity inclusion in the workplace: Broadening diversity management research and practice through the case of transgender employees in the UK. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(8), 781-802.

Priola, V., Lasio, D., De Simone, S., & Serri, F. (2014). The sound of silence. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender discrimination in ‘inclusive organizations’. British Journal of Management, 25(3), 488-502.

Russell, D. (2013). The Cambridge companion to virtue ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

VanMeter, R. A., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2013). Generation Y’s ethical ideology and its potential workplace implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 93-109.

Vardaman, J. M., Gondo, M. B., & Allen, D. G. (2014). Ethical climate and pro-social rule breaking in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 24(1), 108-118.

Click Here To Order Now!