The legal deliberations and pronouncement, in this case, absolved the defendants United Parcel Services Inc. (UPS) in the case of Sarah Crone v. United Parcel Services, Inc. 301 F 3d 942 (8th Circuit) (2002) because the applicant, Ms. Crone could not conclusively prove that her being overlooked for promotion as supervisor did originate from alleged gender discrimination.
Further, “she does not argue that the district court erred in dismissing her claim under this statute because she failed to establish a submissible Title VII claim.” (Sarah Crone, plaintiff-appellant, v. united parcel service, Inc., defendant-appellee, 2002, para.11).
Holding of this case
The facts of this case were that the Transportation Manager, Phil Betts, was empowered to effect promotions and not the Departmental Manager, Ray Whitaker. In the matter relating to Ms. Crone’s deemed request for advertising, these two managers had agreed that because, in their considered opinion, Ms. Crone would not be able to handle intimidatory or “confrontational” situations caused by truck drivers and her lack of pro-active leadership skills, her promotion may not be considered. (United States court of appeals: For the eighth circuit, 2002).
Upon her appeal to the Circuit Court, the defendants proved that her case was being overlooked, not due to gender discrimination (as claimed by her) but her lack of supervisory capabilities. Thus, this judicial pronouncement cannot lead to an unlawful excuse for discrimination in other settings and against other classes.
Need for written documentation – what constitutes gender discrimination?
Coming to the ethics of incorporating the principles of this case into the Broadband Switching & Systems Laboratory (BSSL), it needs to be said that norms and guidelines regarding what constitutes gender discrimination need to be incorporated in writing into the BSSL EEO policy book and training manuals.
Thus, it would be convenient for any upcoming cases relating to gender preferences, promoting a male employee instead of a female, etc., to be promptly identified and solved.
Legal and ethical implications of the ongoing debate: It is no travesty of truth to state that information disseminated through TV channels, whether a few monopolistic companies monopolize gratis or paid media, and people living in a free and democratic country do not have much of a voice in what is being broadcast. Moreover, “Decisions about the ownership and control of the media deeply affect the quality of our democracy.” (Free TV swallowed by media giants: The way it is, 2003, p.1, para.4).
Again, coming to the ethical aspects, it is seen that these large corporations are in a position to control the free TV channels also, being their virtual owners. Thus, the argument that free TV is losing out on channel TV seems to stand on flimsy grounds and is, therefore, untenable.
Moreover, it could also be said that these kinds of monopolistic holds by the Big Five could jeopardize the diversity, freedom, and suzerainty of the country’s television media. Nowadays, it could even be said that the decision whether to place TV programs on paid or free channels is left to the handful of corporations, thus, in effect, placing a premium on monopolistic holdings.
The changes should not be allowed because this would effectively consolidate the position of the Five Big channel barons and reduce the status of free channels substantively.
“More than 300,000 Americans signed petitions in recent weeks asking Congress to overturn the FCC rules, and a Third Circuit Court this month stayed the rules from going into effect due to a “significant matter of public interest.” (Senate vote Tuesday overturning FCC media ownership rules won’t threaten “free TV,” 2003, para.10).
If the merger holdings allowing up to 45% (presently 35%) is allowed by Congress, it will increase the holdings of the Big Five, and all the paid and free channels would come into their hands. “Fox-Liberty, AOL-TW, CBS, VIACOM, ABC-DISNEY and NBC-Vivendi.” (Free TV swallowed by media giants: The way it is, 2003, p. 4). This would not be beneficial for employees of FCC since it would curtail the need for dispensing unbiased and factual news.
Free TV swallowed by media giants: The way it really is. (2003). Consumers Union: Publisher of Consumer Reports. Web.
Free TV swallowed by media giants: The way it really is: Table 2: Dominant video program producers/distributors. (2003). Consumers Union: Publisher of Consumer Reports. Web.
Sarah Crone, plaintiff-appellant, v. united parcel service, Inc., defendant-appellee: United States court of appeals, eighth circuit. – 301 F. 3d 942. (2002). Justia.com: US Court of Appeals, Cases & opinions.
Senate vote Tuesday overturning FCC media ownership rules won’t threaten “free TV”. (2003). Common Dreams Progressive Newswire: Latest News from America’s Progressive Community. Web.