Propaganda
October 19, 2020
Scholarship essay
October 19, 2020

Race and National origin

Kimpel, Catherine. KPMG gender discrimination case. 7th Feb. 2013. Web. 19th Feb, 2-14.

Link: http://www.sanfordheisler.com/cases/item.html?item_id=64440

Summary:

This article represents a case represents a case in which a big four accounting company called KPMG had been slapped in the face by ruling made by judge Furman. The defendant company was trying to avoid a litigation that had been filed on the grounds of gender discrimination. A class of female professionals was represented by Stanford Heisler LLP in the case in which they had sued the company for discriminating them gender wise. According to the allegations, females compose of almost half of the employees of the company, but only about eighteen percent of the company partners. They thus viewed this as discrimination. Further, they claimed that women employees at all levels face much discrimination in the company. The issues surrounding the discrimination were failure by the company to address discrimination complaints, discrimination of women on matters of salary and promotion, and discrimination of the female gender based on pregnancy. The company is also accused of deducting employees’ salary when they go for maternity leave. Some employees have also been fired for becoming pregnant.

Analysis:

Diversity happens to be part of people lives and people cannot avoid it by whatever means. Everywhere including in the family there is an aspect of diversity. The case presented above is alarming. It is very ironical that such issues exist at this age. The case itself is beyond imagination and appears inhumane. The discrimination of women that is mentioned in the case goes beyond mentality. The behavior of this organization seems to be affected with a seventeenth century mentality. Women should be given their rights to bear children without being fired in work. They should get promotions and salaries, not based on their gender, but based on their professional levels and capability, as well as, the work they do.

This case is completely in contravention of the principles of organizational behavior, in relation to organizational dimensions of diversity, and also the internal dimensions of diversity. Good principles of organizational behavior demands that the diverse views, cultures, opinions, views, ages, and other aspects that co-exist I an organization should be recognized and respected. For an organization to do this, it has to consider the internal dimensions that exist among the employees of the organization. The management of this organization ought to understand that; even though people are equal before the law, some difference exists between people. In line with internal dimensions of diversity, such differences are intrinsic and cannot be controlled. Ignoring them, or discriminating them leads to negative consequences. This is what is already happening to KPMG. The organization has even gone to an extent of firing an employee only because they have become pregnant. This is concrete evidence that the organization is not respecting or recognizing internal and organizational diversity.

Opinion:

The case of KPMG is a case that should not happen in the present time. The allegations against the company appear to be very clear. It is very disappointing that in this era, a company can discriminate to such an extent. Worse is the act of fining women when they go for maternity leave. Again, it is very saddening that some of them are even fired. Going by these observations, I opine that KPMG has violated human rights and should be disciplined by a court of law, so that it can stop its discriminative behavior.