Question

SEX DISCRIMINATION SCENARIO Annabel Nevins works for a large corporation and is responsible for soliciting contracts and then providing services to the customers she has solicited. She has been with the company for five years and has been very successful both in the number of contracts she has brought to the company and in the satisfaction of her customers. In August 2018 Ms. Nevins applied for a promotion to Chief Account Executive, which would be the next step up in management and would require her to supervise ten (10) additional staff. Her immediate supervisor has recommended her to the company Promotion Committee. There are twenty - five partners on the Promotion Committee, five of whom are women. In recommending her for promotion, her supervisor noted that Ms. Nevins’ performance has been outstanding and that she has played a key role in the consistent successful performance of her department. He went on to state that he did not believe any of the other candidates being considered for promotion had a comparable record to M s. Nevins. The company had five promotion opportunities available and one other woman was considered apart from Ms. Nevins. The company denied Ms. Nevins’ promotion request. It did promote the other woman who applied. Ms. Nevins’ supervisor discussed with her the reasons and provided guidance on what she could do to increase her chances for promotion in the future. He explained that the Promotion Committee praised her character as well as her accomplishments, describing her as "an outstanding professional" who had a "deft touch," a "strong character, independence and integrity." Clients appear to have agreed with these assessments. The supervisor explained, however, that Ms. Nevins’ aggressiveness apparently spilled over into abrasiveness. He "indicated that she was sometimes overly aggressive, unduly harsh, difficult to work with, and impatient with staff." One partner described her as "macho", another suggested that she "overcompensated for being a woman", a third advised her to take "a course at charm school ." Several partners criticized her use of profanity; in response, one partner suggested that those partners objected to her swearing only "because it's a lady using foul language." Ms. Nevins’ supervisor suggested that she "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make - up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry." He explained that it would aid in her chances of promotion in the future. Ms. Nevins believes that she was denied a promotion based on her sex (gender).

After reviewing the scenario, please write in 200 words or more:

1) Why you think Annabel Nevins was discriminated against in being denied a promotion; (2) Why she was not discriminated against; and (3) Do you think she was or was not discriminated against?

Answer 1

1. Annabel Nevins was discriminated against in being denied a promotion. She had the capability and competencies for the new role. Moreover her past performance was exemplary and out-passed the performance of other candidates being considered for promotion. Different partners however rejected her promotion request citing reasons that she was a macho, she needed feminine body language and etiquettes, she could enrol for a course at the charm school, etc. All these were baseless comments and had nothing to do with the job role. Hence they were discriminatory comments and were completely illegal.

2. One of the partners gave the reason that Annabel was too aggressive to handle the new role. If the new role required more empathy and calmness, then this can be considered as a valid reason for the rejection of Annabel’s promotion. The supervisor needs to give honest feedback about Annabel’s behaviour citing areas for improvement. Annabel needs to take the feedback quite constructively and work on the same so as to be eligible for promotion next year. In this scenario, we can conclude that there was no discrimination done in Annabel’s case.

3. In my views, discrimination is quite evident in Annabel’s promotion rejection case. The partners have given baseless reasons for the rejection, which has nothing to do with her new job role. The partners have hinted that Annabel lacked femininity. However it has been nowhere mentioned that the new job role required feminine attributes. Hence I feel that Annabel was discriminated based on sexual and gender remarks of the partners.