1.

If I were a board member I would conduct research before I voted on the issue raised by Phyllis Warren; but background is necessary. To recap, Ms. Warren, unsatisfied with the boards vote that equal work deserves equal pay, wished to additionally compel the board that the women who bore the discrimination were entitled to reparationsback pay; to be compensated for years where parity was absent. Prior to our new discussion of back pay, our board struggled with the meaning of comparable worth; that women and men should be paid on the same scale not only for doing the same or equivalent jobs, but also for doing different jobs involving equal skill, effort, and responsibility. We found that women were not being compensated for their worth. Based upon Ms. Warrens request, my research would entail two lines; the first aimed at framing the issue of discrimination in a broader, legal context. The next line would review Ms. Warrens request based upon the companys history and finances. Perhaps the second research line is best framed by a question: Can we afford to pay reparations without impacting the corporations bottom line? In other words, would all employees suffer at the expense the boards agreement to providing back pay?

The first line of my research would, necessarily, begin with the definition of a discriminatory employment decision. Thus I investigated the federal agency charged with adjudicating issues of discrimination in the workplace: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This body, established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enforces federal discrimination laws. Their mandate is thus:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. As a board member, I understand that we are a firm which violated this covenant. This is precisely why I deemed it appropriate that womens salaries were brought into parity with mens. My further research, however, also disclosed that addressing disparity or discrimination is a completely separate issue from offering reparations. As a board member, I was obviously concerned with our legal obligations; not on redressing the problem (which we had), but for reparations. My research on compensation for previous discriminatory actions led me to affirmative action. Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines affirmative action like this:

An active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also : a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons. Looking further into this topic, I was surprised to learn that even the United States Supreme Court has discerned that the ideal manner to address affirmative action suits is on a case-by-case basis. To me, this speak volumes: The law of the land, the Constitutional guardian of democracy rendered affirmative action complex enough that the topic is addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Pursuant to the second line of research, I have found, as a board member, that accommodating Ms. Warrens request may impact the bottom line of our manufacturing firm. Thus, I researched precisely how much reparations might cost our firm. My

research was inconclusive. Thus I had to agree with a fellow board member that our board could only correct current wrongs, and to expect us to bear the full financial liability of decisions we never made is totally unrealisticand unfair. I base this decision on the actions of government. While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Brown v. Board of Education righted wrongs, they were simply that: a righting of wrongs. The Supreme Court (Brown v. Board of Education), and Congress and President Johnson (Civil Rights Act of 1964) decided to right wrongs. There were no reparations associated with the case or the legislation. Regarding to the legislation, the bills introduction mentions nothing of reparations:

An Act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute units to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and other purposes (Public Law 88352, July 2, 1964). Thus I vote no on Ms. Warrens request. 3. Ms. Warrens actions were completely unfair to the board. I base this determination primarily on the fact that she approached the board under false pretenses. That is, her strategy ploy was not truthful. Her suggestion that she and her colleagues enjoyed broad support from other employees was misleading. If her intentions were not solely monetary, whey then, did she not provide the board with concrete examples of firms providing reparations based in precedent or law? And my research yielded instances where reparations were offered. A gloomy example of reparations was an element of an agreement forged between post World War II Germany and survivors of the

Holocaust. They receivedand continue to receivereparations for that horrific atrocity. There have been myriad other calls for reparations, such as compensating descendants of African American slaves in the United States.

Thus I believe that Ms. Warren did unfairly take advantage of the board, based on history, her untruthful statements to the board, and the fact that we the new arbiters of fiduciary responsibilityrighted a past wrong for which we had neither jurisdiction or influence.

References

Johnson, Lyndon B. "Civil Rights Act of 1964." Public Law 88-352, July 2, 1964. Available: http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/ Merriam-Webster.com. Definition of Affirmative Action. 2013. Available: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affirmative%20action United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Overview. 2013. Available: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/index.cfm