ethics case study situation 1
- identify the ethical issue presented in your case below. Why was it an ethical concern?
- decide whether or not you agree with the solution to the issue. What changes would your team have made?
- Use the ethical decision-making process to determine how you would have handled the situation. Did you come up with the same solution as the scenario? After conducting an analysis, consider how you would, as a manager for the organization you chose in Module 1, use the ethical decision-making process to handle an ethical dilemma.
A Luncheon Harassment
After a two hour purchasing meeting in the morning, Bill Smith, an Airgoods Corporation Sales Representative, had invited Jane Thompson to lunch. They left at noon. An hour and a half later, Jane stormed into Don Bradfordâ€™s office, obviously upset. When Don asked what was wrong, Jane told him in very strong terms that Bill Smith had sexually harassed her during and after the luncheon. According to Jane, Bill made some sexual comments and suggestions toward the end of the meal. She considered this to be offensive and unwelcome. Jane, however, told Bill to take her back to the office. He attempted to make light of the situation and said he was only joking, but on the way back he made some further comments and several casual physical contacts to which she objected. When they arrived at the company, Bill was embarrassed and tried to apologize. But Jane entered the office before he could finish. Jane demanded that the Airgoods Corporation be taken off the bidder list for the raw material contract and that Airgoodsâ€™ President be informed of the unseemingly and illegal behavior of one of his salesmen. She would also consider taking legal action against Bill Smith through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for sexual harassment. Also, Jane stated she would investigate suing the Propmore Corporation for failure to protect her from this form of discrimination while she was performing her duties as an employee of the company. At the end of this outburst, Jane abruptly left Donâ€™s office. Don was significantly troubled. Jane played a critical role in getting bids for the raw material contract. He needed her. Yet he knew that if he kept Airgoods on the bidder list, it might be difficult for her to view this vendor objectively. Don was somewhat concerned about Janeâ€™s threat to sue Propmore but doubted that she had a very good case. Still, such an action would be costly in legal fees, management time, and damage to the companyâ€™s image. Don wasnâ€™t sure what to do about the bidder list. Airgoods had an excellent record as a reliable vendor for similar contracts. Propmore might be at a disadvantage if Airgoods was eliminated. On the other hand, Don firmly believed in standing behind his subordinates. At this point, he needed more information on what constitutes sexual harassment and what policy guidelines his company had established. He examined two documents: the EEOC Definition of Sexual Harassment (Appendix 1) and the Propmore Corporation’s Policy HR-13, on Sexual Harassment (Appendix 2).
APPENDIX 1 SITUATION I
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION DEFINITION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
â€œUnwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individualâ€™s employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individualâ€™s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.â€
â€œApplying general Title VII principles, an employer, employment agency, joint apprenticeship committee or labor organization (hereinafter collectively referred to as â€˜employerâ€™) is responsible for its acts and those of its agents and supervisory employees with respect to sexual harassment regardless of whether the employer knew or should have known of their occurrence.â€
APPENDIX 2 SITUATION I
THE PROPMORE CORPORATION POLICY HR-13
POLICY AREA: Sexual Harassment
PURPOSE: The purpose of Policy HR-13 is to inform employees of the company that The Propmore Corporation forbids practices of sexual harassment on the job and that disciplinary action may be taken against those who violate this policy.
POLICY STATEMENT: In keeping with its long-standing tradition of abiding by pertinent laws and regulations, The Propmore Corporation forbids practices of sexual harassment on the job which violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sexual harassment on the job, regardless of its intent, is against the law. Employees who nevertheless engage in sexual harassment practices face possible disciplinary action which includes dismissal from the company.
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION: Those who wish to report violations of Policy HR-13 shall file a written grievance with their immediate supervisors within two weeks of the alleged violation. In conjunction with the Legal Department, the supervisor will investigate the alleged violation and issue his or her decision based upon the findings of this investigation within 30 days of receiving the written grievance.
-use in text citations to justify explanation
-min 300 word