This paper will analyze the case of Maria and pay attention to several important points. In order to do so it will explore the structural and personal examples of discrimination that are evident in the case; prove the Maria was denied of promotion unfairly; explain why the requirement for unaccented speech constitutes a form of indirect discrimination and propose an effective policy to avoid such situations in the future.
To begin with, one should note that the situation that is described in the case fits the definition of two concepts, namely sticky floor and glass ceiling. The former refers to the situation when particular employees, usually female workers, are not able to rise above their initial position and the latter is used to show a phenomenon when an employees, also predominantly females, are denied of promotion for no particular reason (Nevaer, 2010, p. 213). For example, it has been stated that Maria has been forming in the company for almost 10 years and was not able to advance a lot from her entry position. Furthermore, she was denied of a promotion, though she was the best candidate for the job.
The next aspect of the situation would show the extent of the structural discrimination. The text argues that Maria was the only woman and the only non white person in the department. Of course, it is understandable that it could have just happened so that a particular department recruited only white males. However, the probability of it is rather small, keeping in mind the diversity of the contemporary labor force. This means that the company deliberately recruited people who fit some of their hidden requirements, avoiding hiring people of color or women. With this in mind, it becomes obvious that the board of directors in general and the managers in particular were more concerned about the external features of their work force rather than think about improvements that actually might bring benefits to the company in