Please rewrite my original essay for 1st part of essay..i will attach original paper with professor feedback. Original paper is over 1000 words. This paper only needs to add approx. 500 more words to complete assignment.
This essay will include a revised and polished version of your Week Three Assignment, an objection to your thesis, a rebuttal, and concluding remarks. In order to benefit the most, you should start working on your Final Project from the time you receive your Week Three Assignment back with comments from your professor.

Your assignment should include the following:
A revision of your Week Three Case Analysis Assignment. Your revision should represent a substantial edit of your work that fully incorporates feedback from your professor and goes well beyond correcting any grammatical or APA errors.

The strongest possible objection to your thesis. After the final paragraph of your Week Three Case Analysis Assignment, start a new paragraph that introduces the strongest possible objection to your thesis. The considerations for this are detailed in Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). Make sure to employ the appropriate language to introduce the objection, such as “some may object to my thesis as follows” or “according to [so and so] the thesis presented here fails to account for X” [whatever he or she finds problematic]. You can find other language to do this, of course, but the key point here is to make sure that you indicate that someone else is speaking when presenting this objection.

It is also important to remember that you do research to discover good objections and not merely objections that are weak and thus easily rebutted. Look for peer-reviewed journal articles in the Ashford University Library, full-text articles in Google Scholar, or articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Present the opposing position fairly and in detail. This may take more than one paragraph.

A rebuttal. This is a refutation of the objection that you have just presented. Start this in a new paragraph following the objection paragraph(s). Once again, follow the indications of Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). You may point out an error in the objection. Or you may show that, while it is an important objection, it does not apply squarely to your argument, or does not account for facts that make it irrelevant. Above all, make sure to maintain philosophical decorum in your rebuttal. Toward this end, you should apply the principles of charity and of accuracy, first introduced in the Week One course material. See “Confronting Disagreement” in Section 9.4 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015).

Closing remarks. End your argumentative essay with a paragraph of closing remarks. Provide some reflections of what you have attempted to achieve by means of your essay. You could, for example, explain how your essay sheds light on the broader controversy that it addresses. Or you could point out how your essay addresses a frequently ignored point or the unpopular side in the controversy. You could also reflect on the related matters in the broader controversy that would be useful to examine by others. Do not merely summarize what you have done in the body of your essay, and do not add new information here that would support or contradict your essay since the body of your essay should have addressed all the relevant points. See “Closing Your Essay” in Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo (2015).

PLEASE USE RUBERIC WHEN WRITING ADDITIONS

Total Possible Score: 20.00

Case Analysis Revision

Total: 2.00

Distinguished – Provides a thorough revision of the case analysis. The revision meets or exceeds the requirements described in the assignment instructions and incorporates all feedback from the instructor.

Proficient – Provides a revision of the case analysis. The revision meets most of the requirements described in the assignment instructions and mostly incorporates feedback from the instructor.

Basic – Provides a revision of the case analysis. The revision meets some of the requirements described in the assignment instructions and somewhat incorporates feedback from the instructor.

Below Expectations – Attempts to provide a revision of the case analysis, however, the revision does not meet the requirements described in the assignment instructions and minimally incorporates feedback from the instructor.

Non-Performance – The revision of the case analysis paragraphs is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Objection to Thesis

Total: 6.00

Distinguished – Raises the strongest objection to the thesis presented in the revised case analysis. The objection is strongly grounded in research and logical reasoning.

Proficient – Raises a plausible objection to the thesis presented in the revised case analysis. The objection is mostly grounded in research and logical reasoning.

Basic – Raises an objection to the thesis presented in the revised case analysis. The objection is somewhat grounded in research and logical reasoning.

Below Expectations – Attempts to raise an objection to the thesis presented in the revised case analysis. The objection is minimally grounded in research and logical reasoning.

Non-Performance – The objection to the thesis is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Rebuttal

Total: 6.00

Distinguished – Provides a strong, thorough rebuttal to the objection. The rebuttal effectively demonstrates that the thesis can withstand the objection and applies the principles of charity and accuracy.

Proficient – Provides a rebuttal to the objection. The rebuttal mostly demonstrates that the thesis can withstand the objection and mostly applies the principles of charity and accuracy.

Basic – Provides a limited rebuttal to the objection. The rebuttal somewhat demonstrates that the thesis can withstand the objection and somewhat applies the principles of charity and accuracy.

Below Expectations – Attempts to provide a rebuttal to the objection; however, the rebuttal minimally demonstrates that the thesis can withstand the objection and does not apply the principles of charity and accuracy.

Non-Performance – The rebuttal is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Closing Remarks

Total: 2.00

Distinguished – Provides clear and concise closing remarks that comprehensively summarize the essay. The remarks consider the broader controversy and/or further research that could offer additional insight into the moral solution of the business problem.

Proficient – Provides closing remarks that summarize the essay. The remarks mostly consider the broader controversy and/or further research that could offer additional insight into the moral solution of the business problem. The closing remarks are somewhat unclear.

Basic – Provides closing remarks that minimally summarizes the essay. The remarks minimally consider the broader controversy and/or further research that could offer additional insight into the moral solution of the business problems. The closing remarks are unclear and/or vague.

Below Expectations – Attempts to provide closing remarks that summarize the essay, however, the remarks do not consider the broader controversy and/or further research that could offer additional insight into the moral solution of the business problem. The closing remarks are unclear and vague.

Non-Performance – The closing remarks are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.

Applied Ethics: Evaluation of Different Ethical Perspectives/Concepts

Total: 0.50

Distinguished – States a position and effectively addresses each oppositional viewpoints.

Proficient – States a position and addresses the oppositional viewpoints.

Basic – States a position and the oppositional viewpoints, but does not address them sufficiently.

Below Expectations – States a position but does not identify the oppositional viewpoints.

Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Critical Thinking: Conclusions and Related Outcomes

Total: 0.50

Distinguished – Conclusions and related outcomes are logical and clearly reflect an informed evaluation and the ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order.

Proficient – Conclusions and related outcomes are logical and reflect an informed evaluation and the ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order.

Basic – Conclusions and related outcomes are identified and minimally reflect an informed evaluation and the ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order.

Below Expectations – Conclusions and related outcomes are not logical or reflective of an informed evaluation and the ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order.

Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Written Communication: Context of and Purpose for Writing

Total: 0.50

Distinguished – Demonstrates methodical application of organization and presentation of content. The purpose of the writing is evident and easy to understand. Summaries, quotes, and/or paraphrases fit naturally into the sentences and paragraphs. Paper flows smoothly.

Proficient – Demonstrates sufficient application of organization and presentation of content. The purpose of the writing is, for the most part, clear and easy to understand. There are some problems with the blending of summaries, paraphrases, and quotes. Paper flows somewhat smoothly.

Basic – Demonstrates a limited understanding of organization and presentation of content in written work. The purpose of the writing is somewhat evident but may not be integrated throughout the assignment. There are many problems with the blending of summaries, paraphrases, and quotes. Paper does not flow smoothly in all sections.

Below Expectations – Organization and presentation of content are extremely limited. The purpose of the writing is unclear. There is little or no blending of summaries, paraphrases, and quotes. Paper does not flow smoothly when read.

Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics

Total: 0.50

Distinguished – Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand.

Proficient – Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors and is mostly easy to understand.

Basic – Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors which may slightly distract the reader.

Below Expectations – Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors which distract the reader.

Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Written Communication: APA Formatting

Total: 0.65

Distinguished – Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.

Proficient – Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors.

Basic – Exhibits limited knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements.

Below Expectations – Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.

Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Written Communication: Word Requirement

Total: 0.68

Distinguished – The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of words.

Proficient – The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of words.

Basic – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three quarters of the required number of words.

Below Expectations – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of words.

Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Written Communication: Resource Requirement

Total: 0.67

Distinguished – Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.

Proficient – Uses the required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.

Basic – Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within the body of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly.

Below Expectations – Uses an inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted correctly.

Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

this IS PAPER::::::

GENDER DISCRIMINATION AT GOODYEAR
Nekeisha Shosan
PHI445

Introduction
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, an employee who is victim to pay discrimination for any reason including gender has 180 days to submit a formal complaint against the company to the EEOC. Ledbetter failed to submit her case before the EEOC within the 180 days. Even after filing her case, the Supreme Court maintained the initial decision and denied Ledbetter’s case finding Goodyear’s decisions her pay could not be explicitly connected to her gender. In the first lawsuit, Goodyear chose to settle with the 800 female employees at a USD 925,000 settlement and hired an additional 60 as per the free labor market conditions within which Goodyear acquires employees (James, 2007). Ledbetter lost her case because the court was in favor of Goodyear’s performance evaluations practices, which showed her performance, did not excel to the required levels for a promotion of pay increase over her 19-year experience at the company. Moreover, she could have sued Goodyear using the Equal Pay Act, which does not have a statutory limitation on the grace period within which a plaintiff should submit their case to the EEOC.
From the deontological perspective, the Supreme Court was justified to deny Ledbetter’s pay discrimination based on gender case because it did not meet the statutory requirements of a gender discrimination case based on pay discrimination. By strictly considering the statutory requisites, the Supreme Court ensured that the plaintiff followed the letter of the law and even proposed the use of an alternative law to ensure the case could be heard fully. Bader (2013) argues that Ledbetter may have won her case if she had presented her case as a violation of the Equal Pay Act rather than a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which requires employees to have submitted the cases to the EEOC within 180 days after realizing the pay discrimination. Deontology’s focus on the moral right over the moral good underscores the Supreme Court’s decision to deny her case. As the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court is required to interpret and observe every aspect of the law no matter how minute or inconsequential it may seem in comparison to the issue under review. Even though Goodyear settled the first lawsuit, Ledbetter submit her case in good time an failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that she was unfairly underpaid relative to her peers because of her gender. Instead, her performance informed Goodyear’s payment decisions. Therefore, the Supreme court was justified to observe the moral right independently of the moral good in Ledbetter’s case.
The fact that Ledbetter realized that she was being underpaid when relative to her peers years before she submitted her case and months before her retirement suggests that she was uncertain that Goodyear was practicing pay discrimination based on her gender. In the proceedings, Ledbetter admitted that her superior told her she was receiving less pay as early as 1992 and she realized the numerical difference in pay in 1994. However, she submitted her complaint to the EEOC in 1998, the same year she was set to retire from Goodyear after working for the company from 1979 to 1998. The coincidental submission of the compliment matching with her impending retirement suggests she feared for her job security and understood the pay decisions were based on performance irrespective of the employee’s gender. Therefore, Ledbetter’s initial hesitance to submit her case and her decision to submit her case during her retirement year suggests she did not have much confidence in her case. In choosing to observe the statutory provisions of Title VII pay discrimination cases, the Supreme Court ensured that did not exploit Goodyear based on past criminal infringements based on gender discrimination.
Moreover, the fact that the Equal Pay Act would have provided an ideal basis for Ledbetter to pursue her case suggests that her legal counsel or she did not consider the appropriate legal options available for her, particularly considering the suggested period of discrimination (19 years). Ledbetter’s inability to consider the alternative act even after the Supreme Court suggested it would be more suited to her case than Title VII of the Civil Rights Act indicates she possibly understood that Goodyear’s performance evaluation practices were at par with industry standards. Her performance was the underlying reason for the difference in pay between herself and her male peers. Hence, the Supreme Court’s decision to sustain the initial decision due to the plaintiff’s failure to submit her case to the EEOC on time was justified since the plaintiff did not consider the ideal statute to use in her gender-based pay discrimination case.
From a virtue ethics perspective, the Supreme Court would have had to listen to Ledbetter’s case since it was the virtuous decision in term of fulfilling its mandate in ensuring all persons have equal right under the law. However, such consideration would have inadvertently led to the premature acceptance of pay discrimination against Ledbetter based on her long employment history at Goodyear. Virtue ethics would not have taken her hesitance to submit the case into consideration or the requisites for the case to be heard. On the other hand, deontology advocates for the observance of moral rights over moral good in order to facilitate universal fairness irrespective of the parties involved. Universal fairness is an ethical requirement of law courts since it undermines biasness by making the law dispassionate.
Summary
The case of gender discrimination at Goodyear features in two distinct court cases in which 800 female employees sued the company for gender discriminative hiring practices for its entry-level jobs for tire-building positions (James, 2007). In a different case, Lilly Ledbetter tried to sue the company for gender-based pay discrimination at the Supreme Court but failed because of her filing her case after the expiry of the 180 day-period after discovery of grounds for suing a company for pay discrimination. In addition, the court sustained the initial decision on grounds that Goodyear’s performance evaluation practices did not discriminate against Ledbetter based on her gender. Within the capitalist free labor market system Goodyear operates, companies have the right to impose realistically attainable goals on which to evaluate employee performance while the Supreme Court is bound to ensure every provision in any statute used in a lawsuit is met fully. Hence, the court’s decision to uphold the initial ruling on Ledbetter’s case on the grounds that it violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act provisions regarding when to submit pay discrimination cases to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was valid and justifiable. This is particularly true when one considers that an alternative law (the Equal Pay Act) may have helped Ledbetter win her case.
From a deontological perceptive, the Supreme Court ruling, though critical due to the seemingly inconsequently attribute of the initial cause, upheld the court’s mandate to exercise its judicial power fairly and dispassionately for everyone even though Ledbetter had sufficient grounds to pursue her case. Deontology is an ethical theory that advocates for the application of moral right independent of moral good (McCubbrey, 2011). According to Robinson (2003), the ethical emphasis under deontology lies in the act performed rather than the effect it has or the outcome on all affected parties. In its strictest form, deontology advocates for mass acceptance of the moral right regardless of the social cost as long as society accepts the moral right as justifiable and means of maintaining social equality. Unfortunately, consistently observing and implementing the moral right does not always result in moral good as advocated in utilitarianism. Nonetheless, in the case of gender discrimination at Goodyear, deontology provides the ideal solution since it undermines the emotional aspects in gender discrimination cases where evidence of discrimination is paramount for judicial proceedings not the potential practice of discrimination over 19 years as Ledbetter’s case showed.
References
Bader, H. (2013). Misconceptions about Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
James, B. (2007). Goodyear Faces Sex Discrimination Suit.
McCubbrey, D. J. (2011). Business Fundamentals. New York: Createspace Independent Publishing.
Robinson, D. A. (2003). Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas: Introducing the Business Ethics Synergy Star.

THESE ARE MY PROFESSOR NOTES BELOW THAT NEED TO BE UPDATED ON THIS PAPER

Your introduction does a good job discussing the business case. The discussion of the moral problem could be a bit clearer. Clearly articulating the economic system and laws that affect the operations of the business will be important for the success of your Week 5 assignment. Make sure to spend some time revising and refining these elements. Your thesis could be more clearly formulated. Your explanation of how the ethical theory supports this moral position could be improved by more clearly demonstrating how the core principles of the theory directly support the moral thesis. Your premises are clear and concise, but they do not provide strong support for your moral position. As you work on revising these for the Week 5 assignment, focus on more clearly aligning the content of your premises with the specific content of your moral position. You’ve done a good job applying the ethical theory and demonstrating how it supports the best moral solution to the business problem. Your analysis of how this solution is superior to that offered by an alternate ethical theory could be improved by more clearly articulating the specific solution of the alternate theory.

Introduction

Proficient – Provides an introduction that identifies the business case and the specific moral problem being addressed. The introduction is somewhat impartial and/or mostly articulates the economic system(s) and laws that affect the operations of the business. The introduction is somewhat unclear.

( 3.52 / 4.00) Thesis and Ethical Theory

Proficient – Presents a thesis statement that describes the moral position being defended. The thesis is somewhat unclear or vague. Identifies an ethical theory, and somewhat explains how the characteristics of the ethical theory support the thesis. The explanation is somewhat unclear.

( 3.52 / 4.00) Two Premises

Proficient – Presents two premises that directly support the thesis. Discusses the ethical theory and the economic system(s) and laws that affect the operations of the business. Each premise is presented in its own paragraph. The discussion is slightly underdeveloped.

( 1.76 / 2.00) Application Analysis

Proficient – Provides an analysis that demonstrates how the chosen ethical theory supports the best moral solution to the business problem. The analysis compares the moral solutions offered by two ethical theories. The analysis is somewhat inaccurate.

( 0.44 / 0.50) Applied Ethics: Understanding Different Ethical Perspectives/Concepts

Proficient – States and describes the theory and explain the details of the theory, but with some inaccuracies.

( 0.44 / 0.50) Critical Thinking: Explanation of Issues

Proficient – Clearly explains the issue to be considered, delivering enough relevant information for an adequate understanding.

( 0.44 / 0.50) Written Communication: Context of and Purpose for Writing

Proficient – Demonstrates sufficient application of organization and presentation of content. The purpose of the writing is, for the most part, clear and easy to understand. There are some problems with the blending of summaries, paraphrases, and quotes. Paper flows somewhat smoothly.

( 0.44 / 0.50) Written Communication: APA Formatting

Proficient – Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors.

( 0.50 / 0.50) Written Communication: Word Requirement

Distinguished – The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of words.

( 0.50 / 0.50) Written Communication: Resource Requirement

Distinguished – Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.