Crone Vs United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) is a case involving one of the workers, Sarah Crone, and the company with which she was working, UPS. She accused the Department Manager, Mr. Ray Whitaker of not promoting her for a managerial position while she deemed herself suitable for the position (301 F.3d 942, 8th Cir., 2002). He, the Manager, promoted a male worker, Mr. Mike Coddington, for the position instead, hence leading Ms. Crone to file a case alleging sexual discrimination. This, she argued was brought about by the fact that Mr. Whitaker chose a male to fill in the vacant position, leaving her out despite her having worked for the company for quite some time, in addition to having qualifications (Konrad & Kathy, 1997).
Once in court, Mr. Whitaker gave the reason for not considering Ms. Crone for the position as a lack of aggression when handling the male truck drivers (Farell, et al., 2006). This was proven by an example given during the case where Ms. Crone, when confronted by one of the truck drivers, came close to tears. Some of the other reasons as to why she was not considered for the position were her lack of leadership, lack of inventiveness as well as poor people skills (301 F.3d 942, 8th Cir., 2002).
The final ruling of the District Court was that Ms. Crone had not enough evidence to convict Mr. Whitaker of sexual discrimination. Her not being promoted was purely out of her lack of confrontational skills which one must possess when handling such a competitive unionized workforce, mainly male-dominated (Farell, et al., 2006).
Having looked at the case, it might be easily concluded that the holdings of this case could lead to unlawful excuses for discrimination in other settings and/or against other classes. But the truth of the matter is that Ms. Crone was not hired because she was not the best-fit individual for the job. Companies opt to hire or promote persons with the best qualifications for a specified job, whether male or female, and using the above case as an excuse for discrimination would be uncalled for (Konrad & Kathy, 1997). Discrimination would have occurred if the promoted individual, in this case, Mr. Coddington, did not have the qualifications required to hold the position but still was promoted anyway, leaving Ms. Crone out, despite her having better qualifications.
It is essential that all registered companies have a policy stating that no discrimination will occur according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (301 F.3d 942, 8th Cir.2002). Instead of letting Ms. Crone go all the way into filing a suit, UPS should have taken their time in trying to solve the issue privately, in their own company quarters by explaining fully the reasons as to why she was not chosen for the available position (Farell, et al., 2006). This should have been done both in writing as well as verbally. As a result, the public was given the impression that UPS did not handle the situation with care (Konrad & Kathy, 1997).
Companies should also consider giving each and every employee an opportunity for progression as long as the individuals are qualified. They (companies) ought to uphold the policies they have in writing and stand firmly when such cases as the above arise (301 F.3d 942, 8th Cir.2002). Employees should be made aware that although they might not get promoted at a certain opportunistic time which has presented itself, they still have room for improvement hence increasing their chances of being promoted next time (Farell, et al., 2006).
References
Crone v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 301 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2002).
Konrad, Alison M. and Kathy Cannings. (1997). The Effects of Gender Role Congruence and Statistical Discrimination on Managerial Advancement. Human Relations 50:10:1305-1328.
O. C. Ferrell, John Fraedrich, Ferrell. (2006). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases, 7th Edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH).