Professional Neurological Services Case Summary

1.) Parental discrimination was grounds for the complaint because Professional Neurological Services did not seem to have a problem with Dana Lockwood until she disclosed that she was a parent. Also, Lockwood also made it clear that being a parent would not hinder her ability to meet the organization’s required working requirement of 70 hours per week. Lockwood had to reschedule her meeting to care for her child who had pinkeye, which should be considered a justifiable excuse to reschedule a meeting (PNS fired her instead).
Lockwood’s complaint mentioned that female sales representatives with children would earn $45,000 base salary plus 10% commission; she was offered $25,000 and the 10% commission. The case makes no mention as to what the average salary of male sales representatives with children is, so it would be difficult to say that this is an issue of sex, rather it seems to be an issue of being a parent. If evidence was brought forward or if there was any mention to the fact that male parents were offered a 45k salary and 10% commission, then it would be reasonable to argue that there is discrimination based on sex.
2.) First off and foremost, Professional Neurological Services had no reason to offer Lockwood almost half of the

average salary of sales representatives after they discovered that she was a parent. Next, PNS should not have fired Lockwood as a result of needing to reschedule a meeting. She acted professionally and attempted to fulfill the organizations needs while dealing with a family emergency (seeing as the condition of her child was highly contagious). This should not have been used as a justification to fire Lockwood.
Seeing that Lockwood showed no performance-based issues that would have merited her dismissal from the organization, PNS should not have fired her. Another issue here is that PNS seems to not be aware of labor laws that exist in the state in which they are operating. If PNS had a better understanding of labor laws, they would probably have known that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 requires men and women to receive equal pay when doing equal jobs; even though the issue is of being a parent and not of sex, Lockwood was doing the same job that non-parents at the organization do and should have been awarded equal pay from the beginning.
3.) If I had to offer PNS advice I would encourage them to abide to the conditions stated and addressed by equal employment opportunity, as the Fundamentals of Human Resource Management states, “…all individuals have an equal chance for employment, regardless of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin.” (Noe, pp.61) This right is enforced by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission and is identified in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

For Professional Neurological Services, this means that they should not discriminate against potential employees on a basis of prejudice and bias. Any potential employee that is qualified for a position should be treated equally to other possible

candidates.
PNS should also pay employees equally for positions as regarded in the Equal Pay Act of 1963. As long as equal work is being done, employees must be paid equally. The only reason this Act can be overlooked is on a basis other than sex; this includes differences in seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production (Noe, pp.63). This would keep the organization from being accused of discrimination based on sex. Diversifying its workforce and avoiding discrimination can be beneficial for PNS because it would offer a workforce with varying viewpoints and opinions, possibly making ideas more creative and making sure that the organization reaches out to a wider consumer base.