Pinterest Discrimination of Employees (June 2020)

 Pinterest Discrimination of Employees (June 2020)

 There are several different types of social media nowadays. One of the hardest things to create nowadays is a new way of social media since you have to hit a certain niche that hasn't already been covered. Most people are creatures of habit so they will stick to the same routine of checking the same three to four social media apps every day. Pinterest got started in 2010 at one of the most opportune times due to the fact of social media just starting to be on the rise. They provided an app that gives the user a whole new way to interact. It wasn't like Facebook, Instagram, youtube, etc. As with every company, it has its shares of ups and downs in the public eye with most of them not being considered ethically moral to most humans. Ethics plays a big part in business due to the fact that information spreads rather quickly so if you get caught doing something that is unethical you will face major backlash for it. The four major ethical theories are Utilitarianism, Individualism, Kantianism, and Virtue theory.  A utilitarian can be considered someone who wants happiness for all people involved. An individualist would want to maximize profits. Moving on to a Kantian who would want people to act with respect and honor. Lastly, a Virtuest who wants people to have good character traits and avoid being a bad person. 

Company Background

Pinterest is a social media company that started in 2010 with CEO Ben Silbermann and “With Instagram off the market following a 1 Billion dollar sale to Facebook, Pinterest is not the hot social media startup in Silicon Valley” (Founder). So, from the start, the company had lots of different eyes on it which made growth fairly easy “going from 5,000 users in August 2010 to 17 billion in 2012” (Founder). Silbermann got his start by working at Googleplex where he grew to a point where he didn't enjoy his job anymore and then his girlfriend encouraged him to quit. After he quit his job he started an “App development company, Cold Brew Labs” (History).

From this company, he and his high school friend developed an app called Tote. With Tote “Users could browse apparel and other goods from 30 retailers, save items as favorites, and receive push notifications when those items reduced in price” (History). This app sounds similar to what Pinterest developed into but it never got the traction due to people not really catching up with the transition to online shopping. But with the data of Tote Silbermann noticed a trend “ Users were browsing for products and saving them using Tote’s saving feature” (History). Using the data helped the development of Pinterest they took some of the base data from Tote and expanded on the save features and allowing people to search for things they want and be able to add them to a board to look at later. After years of trial and error with betas and testing, they finally launched their app to the public. “Most companies experience periods of intense growth … for Pinterest that was 2011”(History). This due to it being available on the Apple app store and helped them net more users than they thought possible. In 2012 it was time for a big round of funding so they had “raised 100 million dollars as a part of its Series C” (History) that gave them a net worth at the times that were higher than recently acquired Instagram. Until the recent turmoil, it seemed like Pinterest was bound for nothing but success.

Case

One of the most recent disputes that happened with the company was African Americans reported that they were not being treated fairly in the workplace. In the summer of 2020 reports broke out that they had been racially discriminating against its employees. The two front runners of this headline were Aerica Shimizu Banks and Ifeoma Ozoma. According to Banks in May of 2019, she joined Pinterest as a public policy and social impact manager. She states that “her career not only didn't grow, but it was also stifled… periods of glaringly unfair pay, intense discrimination and terrifying retaliation” (Discrimination). From the start, it was nothing but the discrimination that eventually led to death threats and failed to be given raises and higher positions than they had earned based on the work they had put in. At the first team dinner that Banks reported going to, she said she began to feel uncomfortable Charlie Hale the manager was throwing around racist comments and made jokes about Jewish colleagues.

Banks has stated that she has reported these events to HR several times but they deemed that “Hale did not act inappropriately” (discrimination) which is kind of shocking due to the fact of him making multiple racist remarks. Banks kept finding herself doing stuff that was outside of her pay grade so she asked for promotion guidance in which “ It took weeks for him to respond and when he did he mentioned needing a certain number of years tenure to get a bigger title” (discrimination). Banks was unaware of this since she was just told to kill it and she would receive a raise and her ranks would increase no matter how long she was with the company. One of the biggest things Banks said she had to overcome was the retaliation every time she would write something up and send it in it was met with a different opinion.

Banks had crafted a policy to allow them holiday pay to all employees. According to the company “ they were going to adopt that policy but later Banks learned that the proposal; had embarrassed an upper manager” (Discrimination). After this Banks said she had fired all the consultants due to the fact of them misleading the senior executive about involvement in the policy. It was all downhill from that point “Banks was stripped of her responsibilities” (Discrimination) and all the promotions that were in talks were gone and her career was put at a standstill. She was so depressed that her doctor prescribed her antidepressants which she had never taken before in her life.

Moving on to Ozoma’s side of the story her troubling experience began nearly one year into her time with Pinterest. “One of the long-standing issues with the tech industry is the seniority level that women and minorities tend to be assigned… Men are more likely to begin a job in a higher position with larger pay than women are and that's one of the many reasons they are paid up to 20% more” (Discrimination). She was given many high reviews by employees and people of higher ranks so she asked for a pay raise which she received but still not satisfied she wanted to be credited with a higher rank and she was denied. She ended up hiring a lawyer to get her rank increased in which she did which came with another pay raise.

 Later Ozoma’s personal documents were leaked by another employee; it had “linked her name to a far-right political group and shared personal information… she received death and rape threats and random people showed up at her house” (Discrimination). In ordered to get it straightened out Pinterest overfeed to send security to her house which she thought was “absolutely ridiculous” she wanted all of the information wiped off the web but Pinterest wouldn't do that so she had to call former employees at Facebook and Google to aid her in this process while also working with a news intelligence agency. Both Ozoma and Banks ended up quitting in May of 2020 and filed separate DFEh complaints but when they saw the company speak up about the Black Lives matter they decided it was time to put their story out to the public.

The future of most companies relies on their stakeholders and the people who invest in the company. These people help fund big projects companies might be working on and allow them to stay in business. Pinterest had just gone public approximately a year before this whole situation happened; they were valued at around 10 billion dollars and they were to be sold at around 15 to 17 dollars a share. “ Pinterest will use a dual-class structure to concentrate on voting power among major stakeholders including co-founders Ben Silbermann and Evan Sharp. These stakeholders will own class B shares and the rest class A shares” (stakeholder). This system will better help the decision-making system and give the major stakeholders more power to make decisions.

Stakeholders

Some of the major players in the Pinterest stake start with “Andreessen Horowitz who owns approximately 43,500,000 shares which is 9.6% valued at 696,621,296.00 dollars. The next major player would be the company's CEO Ben Silbermann who owns 51,600,000 shares which equates to 11.4% and is valued at 826,107,456.00 dollars. The biggest stakeholder in the company is the Bessemer Venture Partners who own about 59,500,000 which is 12.1% and is valued at over 951,330,000.00 dollars” (Stakeholder). There are several other class B stockholders but those are the 3 most important with the most to gain and lose due to the treatment of minorities at Pinterest.

One of the four major ethical topics that I will discuss is Utilitarianism. A utilitarian has a very different outlook on ethical theories than the other three. So concerning this Pinterest case, a utilitarian would view this case as unethical. “Business actions should aim to maximize the happiness in the long run for all conscious beings that are affected by the business action” (Heather). With Pinterest not treating each employee equally in terms of pay and position and some employees making racist remarks, it doesn't fit the outlook of maximizing everyone's happiness.

When looking at the case I'm not sure how much of this gets up to the higher-ups and the CEO but Utilitarianism is considered “an excellent theory that takes a stakeholder approach” (Heather 19). So this approach would mean they care very much for the people that are invested in the company but after news like this getting out into the public, it hurts everyone involved so it is more of a reason for this to not line up with the utilitarian approach. 

Utilitarianism

The utilitarian approach also states that “ utilitarians are concerned about long term costs and benefits of actions. This systematic and long-range perspective can help the business avoid short-sided thinking that often boots profits momentarily but leads to a quick demise” (Heather 20). If this case were to get some major publicity in the news it could be a long road ahead for the future of Pinterest especially nowadays with the social injustice that the world is facing. I think as a company they knew this was a possibility so they reacted as quickly as they possibly could and put out articles saying that they were hiring more minorities in the company and making sure stuff like this doesn't happen again.

The next major point of Utilitarianism is “Business should aim to maximize happiness in the long run for all conscious beings” (Heather 17). In this case, the way the two employees get treated I'm sure doesn't make them feel good or happy in any way.  Which in result causes them to have some sort of resentment towards Pinterest which leads them to speak out and parting ways from the company.

The last major point of Utilitarianism is “Pleasure with the absence of pain” (Heather 17). This is very important to the case because a utilitarian would want employees to enjoy their job and not have to worry about being profiled and singled out but that is the way Pinterest is making them feel.

Kantism

The next major ethical topic that I will relate to the case is Kantism. Kantism is the complete opposite of Utilitarianism “Kantism does not make decisions based on consequences” (Heather 21). So when Hale was making those racist remarks at the dinner a Kant wouldn’t be looking at the remarks he was looking at the person who made the remarks and determining if that person had goodwill or not. I'm sure when Hale made those jokes he was aware of his intentions and had no goodwill intended towards anyone thus not following a Kantian point of view.

The next major point in Kantism is the formulation of humanity which states “that it is wrong to use people as a mere means to get what you want” (Heather 22). I think in this case the employees are simply being used by the company they are being required to do more work than what their rank and pay require them to do while also being treated very unfairly by their co-workers and the higher up.

The last major point of Kantism is “rational decision making… don't lie, cheat or manipulate or harm others to get your way” (Heather 17). In this case, there really is no rational decision making going on. It's more so just do this and accept it and employees are doing a lot of extra work. In the case, it also states that Banks was forced to take antidepressants and that is harming someone to get your way. If the company is getting her to a point where she has to start taking medication to help the way she feels that in no way supports the Kantian theory.

Individualism

The third major ethical theory is Individualism. This one an individualist would view this case as ethical due to the fact of them supporting business. One of the major points of individualism is “Business actions should maximize profits for the owners of the business but do so within the law” (Heather 17). A lot of the stuff that they are doing isn't necessarily correct but they are making their employees work and help grow the business while not breaking any laws. Some might have to do some extra work and you might not get a pay increase but by no means is it illegal.

Another major individualist theory is “The rules of the market and supply and demands economically regulate how much employees should make and what benefits the company needs to offer” (Heather 18). In the case, it didn't talk much about what kind of benefits were being offered by Pinterest but the pay must have been comparable to what Banks and Ozoma were making at their other tech company jobs. I'm sure if the salary for the position moved in one direction they might get a raise in pay since they would lose employees because everyone wants to make more money.

The last major point to bring up for individualism is “individualism is the only theory among the four that is specific to the business context” (Heather 18). That is the reason why this theory supports the case so much because the case is more about furthering the business no matter who gets affected by what happens. As a business that's all you really care about you want to keep employees happy but the most important thing is making money for your business.

Virtue Theory

The last ethical theory to cover is the virtue theory one of the major points id “act so as to embody a variety of virtuous or good character traits and so as to avoid bad character traits” (Heather 17). Pinterest's way of handling the company's racial issues showed poor character traits as a company they didn't really do much until after the story broke.

This theory differs from the other three because it deals with “ a person's character while the others deal with people's actions” (Heather 22). The actions that were taken by each of the two employees is very courageous and definitely falls in line with what Virtue theory believes in. For them to stand up for what they believe in is very powerful they could have risked getting fired from the company and ruining their reputation which would hurt them in getting a future job.

Justified Evaluation

The whole case in my opinion is very unethical and should not have happened in a business today. Today's society has broken out with an outcry of several forms of racial injustice and many public figures have spoken up about how we as people need to be better and treat people equally. Some of the biggest names appear in sports leagues, Influencers on social media, actors, and in numerous other professions. When it began happening the first time Banks should have been more vocal about it and they should have taken it as a learning curve and know that they need to do better for their employees. But when they began to compound it and more people with the company began speaking up that's where I feel that it really breaks the line of being unethical. Whenever something like this happens within a company it should come to the top of the list on how it needs to be changed because when it breaks it hugely affects the company and if you don't have a good foundation it could cause companies to go under.

One of their major positives that had come out of this situation was the fact that Pinterest did learn about employees being treated unfairly. If they chose to use this information to make the company a better environment is up to them but from the sounds of it appears that the CEO has started making progressive steps towards bettering the company for the future. With that being said Pinterest is still a new social media company in comparison and has a lot of learning to do but this instance will help them make better choices going forward.

Pinterest is a very big social media platform but it does not make the news very often with negative publicity. Although this treatment of workers was definitely unfair it is still one of the first major hiccups that they had to deal with. Some points of action that I think they will have to take moving forward are just better treatment of employees. According to their website, the motto is “to bring everyone the inspiration to create a life they love” (Pinterest). To do this they need to straighten up the workplace and they need to provide stakeholders with their appropriate compensation. When this is the motto that you display on the pages of your website it needs to be something that you live by because if you don't it's kind of hypocritical. I’d find it hard to believe that all the higher-ups in the company were totally unaware of what was happening behind closed doors. It was essentially their job to know that kind of stuff.

Action Plan

The things that they need to do to resolve this problem start with bringing in new diverse employees. They need to give different power positions to a diverse group of individuals so if someone has a problem with the pay they can take it to a boss then it gets discussed by a group of individuals with very different backgrounds. The next step they need to take is to provide a clear outline of things to do when you get hired in the company to move up and get higher pay. The method of just working harder never works. They need to have it written out and it needs to be understood by prospective employees looking for a job. The third step that needs to be taken is they need more a relationship between workers and bosses and bosses to the higher-ups. The chain of communication needs to be more fluent because if someone has a problem it should be easily communicated throughout the company and it needs to be dealt with as soon as possible.

My improved mission statement for Pinterest would be “Creating an equal opportunity for everyone”. This is a good statement for them to follow because it shows that they care about all of their employees and they want them to be treated equally and have the same type of job promotions as everyone else in the company. It is a huge improvement because their motto just talks about people making a life they love but with mine, it shows that they are a diverse company and they are willing to bring in people of different ethnic groups to work for them.  

A new set of core values for Pinterest in my opinion would start with equality. They need people to know that they are changing as a company. The next value to incorporate would be fairness. It shows that no matter where you start or what position you work in you are going to be treated the same as someone in a higher position and a lower position. The last core value that I would integrate into the company would be creativity. When you work at a company such as this one creativity is a big thing so people need to come in knowing they have the creative freedom to try new things and present new ideas to the board regardless of how out of pocket they might be.

To maintain an ethical type of productivity they should start by having company meetings once or twice a week to make sure everyone is on the same page. In the meeting, you can bring up anything that relates to the workplace. It can relate to how you feel you've been overworked or you feel someone isn't doing their share. They should also set aside time for maybe a personal meeting once a month with employees to discuss more personal matters such as time off bonus or pay. When you bring in new employees and fire them make sure it's a group decision don't just fire someone because you don't like them or their views don't align with yours.

Different kinds of marketing the company can do are showing their support for different ethnic groups by donating money by just having members show their support in person or on social media. Make ads that relate to what they are trying to change within the company to show people that hey they may have done this but this is what they are doing to better themselves. This plan going forward could be very important to help Pinterest move forward and get past the bump that they faced with the injustice. It could also expand their outreach of individuals because people are very supportive of a company that also supports what they believe in. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, several companies go through different kinds of turmoil when you are looked at so highly in the public eye especially social media companies because those are the ones that are closely monitored. They need to start bringing in new ideas with new employees to help improve their public eye and get them back on track. As of right now, their stock price is at a five-year high so the improvements that have been made have been good for the business. I’m not so sure this will be Pinterest's last time in the news over something controversial because that is what happens in almost all companies but I don't think it will ruin the company due to this one having a very small impact on it. I just hope going forward in business they are more careful with the decisions that they try to make and weigh the pros and the cons and are positive that that's the route they want to take.

-Dustin Kuhner

Works Cited

• Bort, Julie. “The Two Black Employees Who Took on Pinterest Explain Why They Quit, Their Fight for Pay, the Death Threats, the Private Investigator: 'It Was a Torturous Experience'.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 24 June 2020, www.businessinsider.com/two-black-former-pinterest-employees-discuss-their-fight-for-pay-2020-6.

  
  

• Carlson, Nicholas. “Pinterest CEO: Here's How We Became The Web's Next Big Thing [DECK].” Business Insider, Business Insider, 24 Apr. 2012, www.businessinsider.com/pinterest-founding-story-2012-4. 

  
  

• Feiner, Lauren. “Here's Who Will Get Rich from Pinterest's IPO.” CNBC, CNBC, 8 Apr. 2019, www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/pinterest-ipo-the-largest-shareholders.html. 

• “How Pinterest Became an $11 Billion Company by Organizing the World's Hobbies.” Product Habits, 17 Sept. 2018, producthabits.com/how-pinterest-became-an-11-billion-company-by-organizing-the-worlds-hobbies/.

  
  

• Madrigal, Alexis C. “Think Pinterest Is Stupid? This Interview Might Change Your Mind.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 31 July 2014, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/what-is-pinterest-a-database-of-intentions/375365/

• Myrow, Rachael. “Pinterest Sounds A More Contrite Tone After Black Former Employees Speak Out.” NPR, NPR, 23 June 2020, www.npr.org/2020/06/23/881624553/pinterest-sounds-a-more-contrite-tone-after-black-former-employees-speak-out.

Uber: Dismissing Minority Drivers based off of Racially Biased Reviews

Uber Logo

Abstract

            Uber has been facing heat throughout the last few years as they are accused of dismissing drivers due to low ratings from their flawed rating system. Their system has been considered flawed by driver’s who are affected by it because it allows racially biased ratings from their rides. A Lawsuit was filed stating that many individuals of minority races were affected by this star rating system and demanded that drivers should not be rated with this method any longer because of biased responses. Uber’s response to the allegations and requests were broad because they mainly focused on the odd timing of the case filing, as it was older than five years. This paper will discuss how four ethical approaches would evaluate this case. The Individualism approach would say that Uber was not profiting within the law. Utilitarian’s would say that the company does not maximize happiness in all parties involved, as it is releasing one specific group of people from their company, creating discomfort and unhappiness. The Kantian approach would say this case is not ethical, as Uber is treating their minority drives as a mere means, not an end in order to profit. The Virtue Theory would state that wisdom is not present, so therefore leadership will fail without the four virtues, and Uber is therefore unethical. Based on the evidence given, I would say that Uber needs to remove the star rating system and find a more efficient way to rate their drivers to make them feel more comfortable. I would say there is some racial bias within the company and how the service is run, which needs to be adjusted.

Controversy   

The company Uber is a driving service where individuals are able to go onto an app and request a driver through the app to bring them to their destination, much like a taxi service. Uber is used by many people all over the world for a variety of different reasons, whether that but for going out, lack of personal transportation, or even for convenience. One would expect a company like Uber to be personal and create a comfortable environment for all using this or working for them, however, there are claims that this is not the case. Uber has been said to be discriminatory against minority groups, specifically drivers, and release them of their driving duties due to low ratings. One case occurred in 2012 and the driver won, but a bigger lawsuit was filed a few years later.

Customers appeared "hostile" toward him, with some customers asking where he was from "in an unfriendly way." The lawsuit claimed that thousands of nonwhite drivers have been affected, as these racially biased ratings have no restrictions from occurring (Business Insider). A case between
Uber and 

The first case that went big accusing Uber of racial bias happened in 2015 with Thomas Liu, an Asian man who drove for Uber. Liu filed a class action lawsuit against Uber, stating that riders were giving him unfair ratings due to his race. Liu stated that “customers appeared "hostile" toward him, with some customers asking where he was from "in an unfriendly way." The lawsuit claimed that thousands of nonwhite drivers have been affected, as these racially biased ratings have no restrictions from occurring (Business Insider). A case between Uber and its drivers have been ongoing, as the company classifies its employees as independent contractors, and therefore they are “excluded from legal protections covering minimum wage, unionization, and harassment as well as discrimination” (Eidelson). Because the company classifies their drivers as independent contractors, it is claimed that there is no reasoning for changing their star rating system, as they are not reliable for protecting the drivers against discrimination. However, this is not the only case of discrimination within the company, as there are allegations of discrimination within the consumers of this service.

Starting in November of 2018, trips started to be analyzed to see the difference in charges from communities. Over a year span, it was discovered that when a trip was ordered in lower income communities, driving charges would increase. The article stated specifically that “ride-hailing companies charged a higher price per mile for a trip if either the pick-up point or destination had a higher percentage of non-white residents or low-income residents” (insert source). The company itself has the ability to forecast when the busy times for the service will be, and in what area. By inferring that low-income communities will be needing to use the service, it was found they upcharge, therefore not making themselves available to those who need it in that area.

Randy Clarke's Profile

Finally, occurring in 2020, CEO of Argoplasma, Hans Berlud was caught shouting a racial slur at black driver Randy Clarke. Clarke is a 4.96 rated Uber driver who has done just over fourteen thousand Uber rides over the last four and a half years. Berlud shouted the racial slur at Clarke because of a front seat seating rule in his car, which was all captured on Clarke’s dashcam. Getting proof of this racial discrimination and hate towards minority Uber drivers puts the company in the heat, as there is beginning to be evidence of what Liu filed a lawsuit against in earlier years.

Stakeholders

When taking a look into the stakeholders of this case, the Uber drivers and their families would be considered.  A specific individual that would be a stakeholder would be Thomas Liu, the driver who filed the lawsuit against Uber due to the racially biased reviews he was receiving. Liu and the other minority drivers for Uber would be considered stakeholders, as they are the ones directly affected by the biased reviews being given. Uber itself would also be considered a stakeholder, as they are the company hiring the drivers, and releasing them due to not meeting the minimum rating, which is occurring because of the discriminatory reviews.

Individualism

            Individualism is the ethical theory founded by Milton Friedman that states a business should aim to maximize profits for their company, while staying within the law. It values the owner’s choices, as well as the business itself and their profits (Salazar 17). This ethical approach would go about this case by stating that Uber is not in fact maximizing their profits within the law, as the company is being racially biased and discriminatory.

If Individualism were to analyze this specific case on Uber, it would say that the drivers are morally responsible for their low ratings, and therefore their dismissal from Uber is their own responsibility. Uber would not personally take responsibility for the dismissal of these drivers, as they did not give the drivers a low rating, the individual driver’s consumers did base on their trip. Uber would claim that these drivers were dismissed for the own benefit of their company, as having drivers with low ratings does not help the company profit, as many consumers would no longer want to use the service. Although one can does not take a moral responsibility for their race and ethnicity, as that is the base of conflict in this case as racial bias is occurring, the Individualism approach would focus on the fact that Uber does not take responsibility for these drivers and would need to remove them since they do not allow the company to profit. However, this case demonstrates that Uber is not dismissing the drivers for a profit within the law, as mainly minority group drivers are being targeted. If the consumers using the service do not feel comfortable with the drivers they are receiving, leaving a lower rating would be justified. However, since these drivers being targeted are of a minority race/ethnicity, the individualism approach would not agree with how Uber is going about their profits.

Utilitarianism

            Utilitarianism theory focuses on how to maximize happiness within individuals and others. Within a business, a company should aim to maximize happiness within those involved, including the drivers themselves, as well as the consumers using the service (Salazar 17). This ethical approach would not agree with the case and how Uber is treating their drivers, as racial bias is greatly occurring within the company.

If Utilitarianism were to analyze this case, it would reveal that Uber is not maximizing happiness for all involved, as drivers are not being considered. Uber’s driving rating system allows for many riders to rate their drivers based on racial bias and discrimination, creating an unhappy and unfair environment for these nonwhite drivers. Uber has the ability to alter this rating system, and acknowledge the racial issues occurring within the individuals that use their service. Due to Uber being racially biased and firing those of minority groups based off of low ratings given by the consumer, many people are being put in a difficult financial and emotional position. This is because they are being mistreated due to their race and ethnicity, which obviously one can does not control, while also losing a source of income to support themselves or even their families. 

 

Kantianism

            Kantianism is an ethical theory that focuses on how individuals are treated. It highlights treating individuals rationally and respecting them and their choices. When looking into Kantianism, the Formula of Humanity plays a large role. The Formula of Humanity describes how an individual should not be treated merely as a means, and instead as an end. Company’s treating their employees as mere means would be when they do not care about their employees as a rational individual, and only use them to the extent of their own benefit.

An individual who treats someone merely as a means is seen to be acting wrongly, which can relate to Uber and how they treat their drivers. Kantianism would not agree with Uber’s decisions and actions towards their drivers. This is because Uber treats racial minority workers merely as a means instead of an end, meaning they do not respect these drivers as a rational individual. Uber is using them as a service, and when one wrongdoing occurs, they immediately release these drivers. The lawsuit filed against the company discussed how many individuals were affected by the racially biased rating system, and Uber’s only statement was that they do not hold responsibility for acts of discrimination, as drivers are considered independent contractors. The company is not considering all potential reasoning for this occurrence with the driver, and instead makes an assumption on what happens and terminates their driving.

Virtue Theory

            The Virtue Theory consists of the cardinal traits that work toward better individuals within society. These traits allow individuals to become a better self, and by containing the virtues of courage, justice, wisdom, and temperance, individuals are able to stay away from negative or bad traits (Salazar 17). In order to be ethical and for a company to be successful, all four of these virtues need to be met. In the case of Uber, two of the four virtues are not met, wisdom and justice.

            Justice is fair treatment for all, and in this case, Uber is not treating all drivers with equal respect. There is no justice for minority drivers that work for this company, as many are being released due to biased reviews, they are receiving from the consumer using the service. Because Uber is lacking justice within their company, it makes them less credible and ethical. Not only are they missing justice, they also lack wisdom. Within this theory, wisdom is defined has having good judgment, and acting with knowledge. Uber lacks this as a whole, as they lack awareness and knowledge of the amount of minority workers being affected by their own rating system. The company is not cautious about how they approach the dismissal of these drivers, as they do not go over the drivers account to see if there are any similarities in ratings. Since Uber is missing two out of the four cardinal virtues, the Virtue Theory would say that Uber lacks leadership qualities. Because they lack leadership qualities, it brings down the credibility and good character of their company, making consumers and workers form different opinions on whether or not they have good intentions for all those involved within their service and company or not.

Own Opinion

            In my opinion, I feel that Uber’s star rating system is not ethical. I feel this because there is large room for error, as people are able to leave ratings for whatever reason, even if it is not based on the quality of the ride itself. Although the drivers working for Uber are considered independent contractors, I feel that they should still be protected against discrimination, as many are being fired indirectly because of it. What Thomas Liu encounter is not the first time an Uber driver faced racial bias, as this has also occurred one other time in 2012. The lawsuit I think was a reasonable action to be taken by Liu, as Uber would have not ever been held accountable for the flawed rating system putting many minority individuals’ jobs at risk. Driving for Uber may be a main source of income for many of the drivers working for the company, as they struggle to pay bills or feed their family. I think that Uber needs to be more aware of what the reviews consist of and need to have a set plan in place to analyze the reviews coming in for these drivers, and if they may potentially be racially biased, and not just because of a poor ride the consumer received.

Action Plan

            Racism and racial bias have been an issue for many years but has been a large focus in the media and everyday life today. Many individuals that fit into these minority groups deal with discrimination every day, whether it be in the workplace, in public, or even on social media. With the world we live in today, many individuals should not have to live oppressed, and should receive equal rights throughout their everyday lives, especially in the workplace. Uber is a service that is available for all individuals and is supposed to add convenience to the consumers lives. It allows individuals anywhere to get a ride to any destination and leave a rating on their experience once the ride has concluded. The star-rating system in place, however, is flawed and allows riders to leave biased ratings that ultimately affect the future of the driver’s career within the company.

How Uber Works

With the accusations of racial discrimination and bias within the company, Uber needs to make a change. Implementing a mission statement can allow the higher ups of the company, drivers, and rides all have one clear mission in mind, and show how everyone should be treated when using the service. Uber’s mission statement should state that they are working to create a driving service for all, no matter race and ethnicity. Core values, such as acceptance, equality, and consistency, should be included within the company as well. Taking steps to ensure that racially biased reviews do not influence immediate dismissal of drives should be implemented as well. This could be done by having individuals within Uber be assigned to specifically analyzing these reviews. Uber could set up a specific system to watch these drivers accounts and reviews, to see if they come up or seem racially biased. That way, these individuals will not be removed from the company just because of the star rating received from the rider. 

Changes to the firing process need to be updated, so those who are dismissed are not dismissed unjustly. Currently, once an Uber driver drops below the needed driver rating, their account automatically gets closed, and they are dismissed from the company. Uber should do a multi-step system to dismiss those drivers that actually need to be dismissed, not dismiss those who receive a racially biased rating, causing their score to decrease. Hiring individuals who can overlook these ratings and create a warning system for the low ratings may be effective. By analyzing and counting the number of negative ratings a driver receives, these individuals can discuss proper outcomes for the driver, and decide if their low rating was biased or not.

When it comes to remarketing for the company, Uber needs to have some sort of press conference to address the issue at hand. By doing this, it can show its users that they are aware of the racially biased ratings being given to these nonwhite drivers, and that they care enough to fix it. This plan will promote business profits and productivity because all people will feel safer working for this company, as well as using the service knowing that changes have been made to avoid racial bias and discrimination. It conforms to the previously listed core values as the company will be more accepting of all races, as they treat all races and ethnicities equally. This will ensure good ethics, as Uber will no longer be able to discriminate and dismiss minority drivers because of alleged bad ratings.

 

 

References

Allyn, Bobby. “Uber Fires Drivers Based On 'Racially Biased' Star Rating System, Lawsuit Claims.” NPR, NPR, 26 Oct. 2020, www.npr.org/2020/10/26/927851281/uber-fires-drivers-based-on-racially-biased-star-rating-system-lawsuit-claims. 

Beachum, Lateshia. “CEO Fired by Company He Founded after Video Showed Him Shouting Racial Slur at Uber Driver.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 6 Feb. 2020, www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/06/hans-berglund-fired-uber-video/. 

Dean, Grace. “A New Lawsuit Accuses Uber of 'Intentional Race Discrimination,' Claiming the Star-Rating System It Has Used to Fire Drivers Is Biased.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 27 Oct. 2020, www.businessinsider.com/uber-lawsuit-discrimination-ratings-civil-rights-drivers-fired-2020-10. 

Eidelson, Josh. “Uber Sued for Using ‘Biased’ Rider Ratings to Fire Drivers.” Bloomberg.Com, Oct. 2020, p. N.PAG. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=146637792&site=eds-live.

Murphy, Coral. “Was Your Uber, Lyft Fare High Because of Algorithm Bias?” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 22 July 2020, www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/07/22/uber-lyft-algorithms-discriminate-charge-more-non-white-areas/5481950002/. 

 

 

Princeton Loses Discrimination Case: Losing $1 Million (2012-2020)

 

    Princeton University is a private Ivy League research university in Princeton, New Jersey, founded in 1746. Princeton’s reputation is known to be a prestigious school with outstanding academic programs offering education at its finest and one of the best in the nation taught by extraordinary professors. Princeton was approached by the labor department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) due to the allegations of the school discriminating against its female professors and paying them significantly less than their male colleagues Princeton’s response to the allegation regarding compensation discrimination was said to be unfounded and therefore denied such wrongdoing. The OFCCP refused to let go of the issue and decided to launch an investigation back in 2012 against the Ivy League school. After nearly 8 years the OFCCP had sufficient evidence that proved there was compensation discrimination. The evidence showed that the school broke laws and then the school had decided to reach a deal calling it an “early resolution conciliation” instead of it going to trial which could have resulted in major fines and a larger payout on the behalf of the school.

    Throughout this case study, we are going to apply certain ethical theories Including Individualism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Virtue Theory. These theories will provide a clear explanation of whether or not the case is ethical or unethical according to the ideals of the individual theories.  According to the law, Princeton went against the theory of Individualism and found that the Princeton case was unethical. Utilitarianism found the Princeton case was unethical as well because it did not maximize the happiness of anyone involved. Kantians would argue that the case is unethical because Princeton is simply using its female professors as a means to get their students the education they need and not treating them the way they should be treated. Virtue theorists would argue the case is unethical because out of all the cardinal virtues the school did not exhibit any of them. The school had no courage in admitting they were wrong, and they were injustice in their action and lacked prudence, temperance, and honesty. Based on all of these arguments I think the school should review its action and consider making some improvements in how they treat and see their female professors.
    

Princeton University Faculty Room

 Ethics Case Controversy

    Due to allegations that Princeton University is discriminating against its female employees an investigation launched in 2012 to determine if the allegations of “discrimination in salary and gender pay gap” at Princeton University were indeed true. This investigation was to determine if women at Princeton were actually receiving less pay compared to their male colleagues. The Department of Labor started this investigation as part of a “routine compliance procedure” and found that there were harsh disparities in the salary of women who were considered full-time professors compared to their male colleagues, which, can be traced to two years prior (NYTimes). The labor department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) spent a majority of their time focusing on investigating the school during the years of 2012-2014. The OFCP came to the conclusion that that 106 female professors have been at a disadvantage to their male colleagues by being disproportionately targeted in pay disparities and concluded that Princeton violated the “Equal Employment Opportunity” law. This law requires “Government contractors to take affirmative action to ensure that equal opportunity is provided in all aspects of their employment and can’t discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex…” and it also states that under certain circumstances, it prohibits adverse actions against employees for asking or discussing anything about their pay or pay of co-workers (U.S Department). 

    Despite what the OFCCP found Princeton had their own statements. The university denied the allegations and said that the report was made “based on a flawed statistical model ” that didn’t take into account the individual departments within the school, but The Department of Labor said it used a “compensation model that grouped and assessed all Full Professors across the University for years in current jobs, other years at Princeton, department, full-time status, highest degree earned, and prior experience in years.”(Early Resolution). A spokesperson, Ben Chang, said that this was wrong because it grouped professors together regardless of department and didn’t resemble how the university actually hires, evaluates, and compensates its faculty. He then said that when the University performed their own statistical analyses for the time that was evaluated, they found that there were no meaningful pay disparities based on gender. However, it’s not easy to see how Princeton feels as though they’ve done nothing wrong when their demographics show that only 27% of full professors are females leaving the other 73% to be males. The lack of female professors and lack of female employees, in general, can be seen as questionable and quite worrisome to any future women who may consider working for the school. To defend their stance in the case spokesperson Chang said that they believed the University was in fact in full compliance with both the letter and spirit of the law. They said the pay differences could be explained by differences between departments, job performance, and the job market for top-tier professors. He also stated that “an English professor cannot perform the same duties that of a Physics professor” to defend his statement that the pay difference could be explained due to departments. It took several years before Princeton decided in order to avoid a legal dispute, which could be rather lengthy and costly, they decided to agree to an “early resolution conciliation” agreement and to enhance future compliance proactively. An early resolution conciliation is used in order to prevent having to through with trials. If Princeton agrees to all the terms and conditions and follows through with them there will be no need for a trial.   Along with the early resolution conciliation agreement the OFCCP determined that Princeton University would end up having to pay $925,000 dollars in back pay to the 106 female professors, and $250,000 in future salary adjustments, equaling a total of about $1.2 million. Money that will definitely be taking a toll on the school.

Stakeholders

    Princeton University is a major ivy league school that many people know of and they depend greatly on their stakeholders. Immediately when the name is brought up people automatically think of how amazing the school is and how intelligent the people are that must attend. Anyone considering applying to go to Princeton needs to be able to trust the school, they want to know if the professors and staff are available to help them with anything they may need. The same thing goes for anyone who wishes to become a professor at the school. Professors are most definitely super important to the school’s success because without them there would be no school. People who wish to work for this school need to know that Princeton is going to do anything it can to support its staff. Especially if people who are currently working for the school find out that the school does not think too highly of them then that puts pressure on the professors and may cause them some stress and disappointment in the school's priorities. Princeton also has over $300 million in sponsored research funding which comes from federal agencies, companies, foundations, and other private entities that are super important to support the school. These fundings allow professors and students to do any research they need without having to spend their own money. If these companies decided to no longer donate their money to the school, it surely would impact the students and the professors and most definitely the school because they would no longer be able to hold the vast majority of research programs that they have. Essentially everyone involved with Princeton is at risk for having their life negatively impacted by the choices made by the school.

His v.s. Hers Pay Disparity

 Individualism

    An individualist would see that this case has not thoroughly followed the laws set by the Department of Labor by not paying their woman professors equally to the male professors. Milton Friedman argued that the “responsibility of the business was to maximize profit within the land of the law and that spending money on resources, employees, and donations to causes are wrong because it is essentially stealing from the company” (Salazar 17). Losing any kind of profit from a business would be bad because that is in technicality their hard-earned money. Any money they make that could be given in extra to the employees could be seen as wasted. However, the school trying to justify their actions by saying different departments should be paid differently based on workload is very unprofessional and negligent in comparison to the high standards the school seems to have, but Individualism states that a business has “no direct responsibility to any interest-groups often called stakeholders” (Salazar 18). But is this unethical though?

    Despite the school looking out for their best interests and not having the responsibility of stakeholders, Princeton University would have failed the theory of Individualism because they broke the law “which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin” (Department of Labor). Based on this law Princeton is liable for committing a crime of discrimination and therefore would be found unethical even if they were trying to do what they thought was best for their school. “Laws, therefore, restrict what a business is ethically allowed to do to profit. Since laws can be changed, these laws simply represent that the business will abide by commonly agreed-upon standards.” (Salazar 18). Even if this law was slightly changed it is still seen as a standard of what Princeton should be doing in order to have a successful business.

Utilitarianism

    A Utilitarian tries to look for the “happiness of all conscious beings” and for this reason, this case would be viewed as unethical because of Princeton’s lack of awareness of its stakeholders. Happiness is the only thing of value and it counts as pleasure and freedom from pain (Salazar 20). When trying to look at a case from the Utilitarian perspective one must try to think of every possible scenario and compare them to one another. All the stakeholders should be accounted for and their happiness should be measured accordingly. 

    Princeton University had numerous amounts of stakeholders starting with the number one stakeholder, themselves. Despite Princeton believing, they were doing what is best for their school they were hurting themselves. Once a rumor spreads that they discriminate against women and they do not equally pay women the same as men their reputation as a prestigious school with extraordinary professors is no longer valid if they don't pay all professors the same. People will start to rethink their opinions on one of the most impressive ivy league schools and possibly consider a different school upon knowledge of Princeton's actions. This could potentially drop the enrollment rate for this school and cause them to lose out on profits. Along with hurting themselves, they are affecting all their staff negatively by having this dilemma brought to light. Staff now must deal with stress, especially the female professors and staff, knowing that the school is trying to argue that they have done nothing wrong. There is no happiness to be found in any of the staff members because they all must deal with the school’s wrongdoings. This is causing women to be stressed and feel discriminated against, they may also be dealing with hostility and criticism in the workplace, and while Princeton believes they are doing the right thing they are also hurting themselves because they now have to endure a long investigation that wouldn’t have to happen if they just did things according to the laws.  Students also get negatively impacted because of this as well because they are attending a school that is known for discriminating against women and that must take a toll on them as well. Let alone that their professors may not be doing the quality work they usually do because of all the tension that has been created making the educations suffer and their money goes to waste. Woman students especially will have no faith in the institution and in their future careers when they find out Princeton isn’t paying females equally to men. Princeton has far more issues than a measly broken law now, they have lost the trust of students, faculty, and the public. If they considered this all in the first place, they wouldn’t be in the predicament they are in now.

Kantianism

Spokesmen From Princeton

    Kantian ethics is very different from Utilitarian ethics in that it doesn’t take consequences into consideration rather it looks for what “people claim is wrong to manipulate, exploit, or use people to their own advantage” (Salazar 21). In order to follow Kantianism, one must have good intentions in what they are doing, and Princeton certainly does not have good intentions for not paying women equal to men. An action made is rational and permissible if it meets certain standards that demonstrate respect for the autonomy and rationality of all people affected (Salazar 21). Unfortunately, there was no respect shown for the woman professors of Princeton University when the school decided to pay them significantly less than men. If one was to take a step back and look deep enough into the case it could be seen that Princeton was simply only using the women as a means to get the reputation, they wanted and didn’t treat them as people. Paying female employees less than males can be seen as offensive and can also be seen as the school thinking that more highly of its male professors compared to any of the female employees. In order for the school’s action to be seen as morally right, it must pass the formula of humanity which states “that it is wrong to use people as a ‘mere means’ to get what you want. Treating someone as a mere means is using them or exploiting them in any way in order to get something you want without regard to that individual's state as a human being. It disregards their rationality and freedom and usually, it involves an attempt to manipulate them” (Salazar 22). The school certainly did not pass the formula of humanity because they did use the women as a mere means to increase their profits or the school’s reputation. The only way that this case could be seen as ethical is if the school was honest about what they were doing and if their motives were in the right place. The school will only gain moral worth if it has a good reason to be withholding money from other employees.
“People trust businesses that have been around for a while, that have shown honesty and respect in dealing with their customers and can cite a long history of good customer reviews and ways that the company has corrected errors or problems when they occur” (Salazar 5). This meaning that if Princeton wants the respect of its employees and students, they should be honest and do what is right because it is right. 

Virtue Theory

    Virtue Theory differs strongly from the previous three ethical theories because the previous three theories analyze individual actions whereas virtue theory analyzes a person’s character (Salazar 23). This theory is taking a look at the five cardinal virtues which are courage, honesty, justice, prudence, and temperance, and decides whether or not the person was virtuous or not, meaning that the case was ethical. However, virtue theorists would say this case is unethical because Princeton did not establish any of these cardinal virtues, rather they did the opposite. The only people who did show these virtues were the women who were involved in the case and were the ones who had the biggest impact on the school during the time of the controversy.

    Princeton established no courage when they decided to claim that the allegations against them weren’t true and that they were unjust in their actions. When they decided to say that they saw no problems in their actions it showed that they had no morality in their actions and that they didn’t have the courage, to be honest, about the pay disparities that the school was involved in. Therefore, they also didn’t establish any justice because they weren’t interested in fixing what they have been accused of doing. However, the woman had a lot of courage and honesty when they came forth to share some of the information about the situation, they were in. They could have gone through so much by doing this, like harassment from fellow employees or turmoil from the school itself, and they still wanted people to know what was going on. The woman also had prudence when the school did not. Prudence is when someone looks out for their future selves and these women were certainly concerned about their pay rates and how that would impact their futures selves if it didn’t get rectified. Princeton didn’t look into the future of the school when this came to light, instead, they denied it and now they have to pay the woman more money than they would have if they just raised their pay and could possibly be facing harsh judgment from other school or community members. Lastly, women had plenty of temperance, or they did just enough in order to get the results they wanted. This meaning in order to achieve their goal of getting a better pay rate they didn’t go out of their way to accuse the school. For example, they didn’t have any instances where the professors decided to go on strike to get their way of equal pay. Women of the university simply expressed their unhappiness with what the school was doing and let authorities take care of the rest. Princeton however didn’t practice temperance because they continually tried to find an excuse for their actions and tried to prove that what they were doing was just and didn’t warrant an investigation or any kind of compromise. Princeton, unfortunately, failed all of the cardinal virtues and because of this would be seen as unethical in their ways of business according to Virtue Theory.

Justified Evaluation

    In my opinion, everything Princeton did was indeed unethical and very unprofessional. When news of them discriminating against their female employees came out, they could have taken alternative routes to solve the dilemma, but instead, they made matters worse. If they indeed claim “their commitment to equity and equal opportunity for all is ongoing” then shouldn’t they have been doing that, to begin with? Furthermore, when questions started being asked about whether or not they do pay their woman less, they just simply said that they saw nothing wrong in what they were doing and tried to use an excuse based on department priority and level of difficulty.

    Personally, I believe all professors are equal and it shouldn’t matter what subject they teach, all subjects have their difficulties. What gives Princeton, or the person in charge, the right to claim that what they’ve done is based on department difficulty and how do they decide who is more important than who? Instead of denying their action why didn’t they simply say they saw the errors of their ways and try to correct it right then and there? It would have made less of an uproar and an investigation would not have gone on for as long as it did. Trying to fix the problem instead of trying to cover it up is easier than having to deal with a bunch of backlashes after tons of people find out that their school has discriminated against based on gender, which happens to be a very touchy topic when it comes to people.

    For a school that seems to have such high standards for their staff and students they certainly did not have those standards for themselves. Kantianism mentions how when rules are made everyone must follow them and the school certainly doesn’t follow this. They should be acting rational and consistent with the rules that the school establishes and shouldn’t expect themselves to be exempt from them. Since the school wasn’t following any rules set, they could potentially have people, students, and employees question their reliability and morality as a school. Even worse, people may have even decided against applying to either work or attend that school as a student or professor or those students and professors would no longer follow any rules set seeing the main authorities weren’t following them either. Their professionality, in this case, is definitely lacking and their claims offer many unanswered questions. Ethically, everything Princeton did was wrong from lying about what they’ve been doing to how they’ve been treating people. 

Timeline of Princeton University Case

Company Action Plan 

    The current issues Princeton University faces is having to pay women back for all the money they’ve lost due to the pay gap, but besides the school giving money back to the employees, Princeton has also come up with some other means of bettering their school and community based on the early resolution conciliation agreement they signed with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. They claim to be taking proactive steps to ensure pay equity that will comply with the current federal laws (True Jersey). From 2021-2025 Princeton University will conduct a salary equity review for a Full Professes using the most recent annual payroll and human Resource Information. They will also compare the salaries of similarly situated professors and if their records are reviewed by the OFCCP and they find pay disparities and Princeton doesn’t have a legitimate reason why there are pay disparities again the school will be required to apply the appropriate measures in order to ensure the right pay. Along with the daily recording of pay, they will also be required to have training available for anyone who is responsible for making compensation decisions for professors and for anyone who was involved in the pay disparities in the first place.

    Along with all the regulations and training Princeton is required to start they are also responsible for paying $925,000 to all women affected by the pay disparities and up their salary by $250,000. This doesn’t take care of the entire problem but will make up for the loss in salary the women have dealt with in the past. Even though they are getting training for people responsible for pay compensation Princeton should consider getting someone in the school who is qualified to do the job correctly and honestly. They could possibly an outside source who doesn’t work for the school directly to avoid any biased opinions about pay. Along with this, women should better represent the school whether they jobs as deans or just get involved in the school’s activities. The school should offer more leadership positions to women of the school so they can be seen as equal to any male employee. Since the school isn’t necessarily trying to maximize its profit there really are no suggestions for that situation. This case was about the school not paying women equally to men so if the school needs a reason why women should be paid equally women holding more leadership positions could potentially be a reason, even though they shouldn’t need a reason to rightfully pay women the same as men.

Karoline Klaus

References

Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual. n.d.

de Leon, Concepcion. “Princeton to Par Nearly $1.2 Million to Female Professors to Adress Inequity.” Nytimes.com, 13 Oct. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/us/princeton-female-professors-backpay-discrimination-lawsuit.html#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20most%20recent,2018%2C%20while%20men%20earned%20%24253%2C000.

“Executive Order 11246 – Equal Employment Opportunity.” U.S. Department of Labor Seal, www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/executive-order-11246/ca-11246.

Ward, Marguerite. “Princeton University to Pay Female Professors Almost $1 Million in Back Pay in Gender Pay Discrimination Settlement.” Business Insider, 14 Oct. 2020, www.businessinsider.in/careers/news/princeton-university-to-pay-female-professors-almost-1-million-in-back-pay-in-gender-pay-discrimination-settlement/articleshow/78671354.cms.

“U.S. Department of Labor and Princeton University Reach Agreement To Resolve Pay Disparities in Professors' Positions: U.S. Department of Labor.” U.S. Department of Labor Seal, www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20201005.

Classicalycourt. “Princeton Agrees to Pay over $1 Million to Female Professors after Federal Review Finds Pay Gaps.” CNBC, CNBC, 14 Oct. 2020, www.cnbc.com/2020/10/14/princeton-to-pay-over-1-million-to-female-professors-for-gender-pay-gap.html.

“Gender.” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, inclusive.princeton.edu/about/demographics.

Asmelash, Leah. “Princeton Will Pay Nearly $1M in Back Pay to Female Professors in Sweeping Discrimination Settlement.” CNN, Cable News Network, 12 Oct. 2020, www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/us/princeton-university-pay-discrimination-trnd/index.html.

“Princeton University Faculty Salaries.” Chronicle Data, data.chronicle.com/186131/Princeton-University/faculty-salaries/.