The ruling favoring United Parcel Service' Department manager, Ray Whitaker for his position on the matter carries significant weight against Miss Crone's unsubstantiated claims. In this case, the argument that Miss Crone lacked the much-needed confrontational skills serves to put her on the blaming side of the story. We can see that even in her testimonials there was a critical lack of supportive evidence that would validate her claims against Ray Whitaker. Consider Ray Whitaker's comments that, "...Ms.Crone was a good dispatcher, but he did not recommend her for the dispatcher supervisor position because he believed she lacked the confrontational skills to supervise UPS drivers" (United States Court of Appeals: Eight Circuit, 2002).
This was a positive commentary on her job capabilities.
The statement lacks any disposition or sexual alignment as this is not explicitly stated. UPS drivers are exclusively male hence naturally the incorporation of a woman supervisor would lead to defiance complains almost on a daily basis. Consider the impact of this on the daily work operations. Work protests have been known to literary cripple operations of a vast corporation of UPS' nature. Hence, Ray Walker's response steps are a natural way of protecting Miss Crone from the male domineering factor she was getting to expose herself.
Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
Ethically, the move by Ray Walker may appear misjudged and myopic; however, there still exists missing gaps going by Miss Crone's misgivings. Consider the following facts: First, her statement that, "he was scared that I might cry" as a direct evidence of sex discrimination is utterly wrong (United States Court of Appeals: Eight Circuit, 2002).
The act of crying in itself is not sexually linked since all human beings are susceptible to it. The District Court's position on basis of the summary issue 'de novo' provided by the burden shifting framework by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is also utterly misplaced (United States Court of Appeals: Eight Circuit, 2002). UPS's statement concerning her lack of supervisory entitlements are fair in the sense that she had not previously been in a similar position and that it is merely based on chance provision. Consider the factor that Miss Crone personally admitted to a lack of confrontational skills further serves to cement these facts (United States Court of Appeals: Eight Circuit, 2002).
The issue of protocol arises where Miss Crone admits to the fact that Mr. Bettis was the ultimate decision maker hence no overruling could be done on Ray Walker's part. This introduces an element of administrative duties with regard to decision-making levels. These are usually based on organizational structures and the subsequent alignment towards the paths followed towards decision making in a typical organizational setting. Miss Crones therefore suggests that the matter is essentially a misplaced notion. There is therefore a possibility that her claim could be mover of a personal belief mechanism. On the law's part, the lack of role jurisdictions in terms of the fundamental responsibility descriptions of the court's part regarding employer related decisions lacks connection to the case.
The position taken by the District court is therefore not fundamentally satisfactory considering the basic elements of this case.
Implementing the above postulations into the company's policy book and training are beneficial as they serve to bring out some of the factors affecting work settings in which there is a domineering gender element. This would serve to stipulate the gaps and define professional boundaries. Furthermore, the decision-making paths found in an organizational setting deserve some form of streamlining with regard to gender outcomes.