This is a combination of a) short-sighted unit cost calculations and b) an idiotic response to A. Let's say each jacket is $100. You need 126 of them (120 men

This is a combination of a) short-sighted unit cost calculations and b) an idiotic response to A. Let's say each jacket is $100. You need 126 of them (120 men + 6 women, per the article). Let's say because you're buying 120 men's jackets, you get a 20% bulk discount. That's an $80 unit cost for men's jackets and a $100 unit cost for women's jackets (where you don't qualify for a volume discount). The idiot manager says, "Wait a second, we said we were OK with an $80-ish per-employee cost... I can't go spending 25% more on some versus others!" This, on its face, is a fair statement. But the real answer is, "We're buying equivalent goods and our per-employee unit cost is $80.95. Cool? Cool." ($80.95 = [$80 * 120 + $100 * 6] / 126) So instead of doing the real per-employee math, they stopped at the per-item cost, where it looked out of whack. Then they were even more idiotic. Let's say the per-employee cost argument was legitimate (remember: it's not). The right answer would then be, "OK, we need to find something equivalent for $80 unit cost." Instead, they opted for a $0 unit cost for women ("no jacket for you"), a 100% differential. That's not bias or sexism or any of that... it's just idiocy. But it is discrimination, so lawsuit for you. Fire that idiot manager for being an idiot on both risk management and being incompetent.