1. Is this a case of sexual harassment? Why or why not? Janet Cronin cannot be considered as sexually harassed since what she experienced she only a form of gratitude from her immediate supervisor. Her hard work was rewarded by her boss with an expensive meal but somehow the gesture was misinterpreted. The actions committed by Mr. Albert can be considered as normal for a boss who would like to thank his subordinates, likewise, to promote motivation among his peers. Mr. Albert believes in providing incentives to ensure quick and accurate response from his subordinates.
On the other hand, Janet is equipped with all the company's rules and regulations of the company and she capitalized on it as the basis of her complaint. However, her claim is weak and very immature for that matter. 2. What are the most important similarities and differences between this case and "Without Recourse" (the previous case)? The two cases both involve a supervisor-subordinate relationship which is often exposed to sexual harassment. Most of the time, it is the supervisor who takes advantage of his control and power over the career and employment of his subordinates.
In the first case, Mike, the boss, wants to establish a personal relationship with his staff, Jane while Mr. Albert, on the other hand, treats his subordinate, Janet, to dinner as an incentive for a job well done. Mike was rejected by Jane and he resorted to spreading rumors and unfair job evaluation for Jane. The intentions of Mike are malicious and derogatory while Mr. Albert simply wanted to reward his employee for his hard work and perseverance. His actions may misinterpreted but his intentions are clear.
The similarities end there since the second case cannot be considered as sexually abusive due to lack of connotations of malicious and sexual advances. Case 5: "Jesse Green" 1. Would either (or both) Alex or Leslie have a legitimate complaint about having been treated unfairly if they were fired once their work was done? Why or why not? Alex and Leslie have a legitimate complaint if they would be fired after they completed their work because it was stated in the company's manual that it would hire people permanently or let go of them after a year.
Alex have already worked with the company for more than a year and this fact entitles her to a permanent position in the company. On the other hand, Leslie have worked with the company for almost a year now and if her work is done after a year of stay with the company, she is also entitled for a permanent position. The company must abide with its own rules and regulations, otherwise, complaints will be filled against it for unfair labor practice. 2. Have Alex and/or Leslie been harmed by the way Premier has treated them? Has their autonomy been respected?
Ethically speaking, Premier Jewelry have showed poor treatment for its temporary employees because it was not transparent on its rules and regulations regarding employment status. If Alex and Leslie were properly informed of their chances for a permanent position in the company, they would be more motivated and determined to work harder to ensure a permanent employment status. The company has deprived both Alex and Leslie their rights to information and the respect that they deserve as worker of the company. Case 6: "She Snoops to Conquer" 1.
Has the store invaded the privacy of its workers? Why or why not? Yes, definitely. The store has invaded the worker's privacy by installing hidden cameras and phones without their knowledge. It is simply called spying and it is illegal. Each of us have the right for privacy and employers don't have the right to snoop around their employees whereabouts even if their intention is to catch a thief. The end does not justify the means. 2. What, if anything, should Fanuchi and Katwalski do with the other information (the information unrelated to the thefts)?
The information that Fanuchi and Katwalski have gathered which are unrelated to the thefts cannot be used for legal purposes or whatsoever. Their means of gathering all these information is illegal and therefore, it can only cause legal troubles for the company and themselves as well. 3. How might the employees be expected to react if they learned of Fanuchi's and Katwalski's activities? If the employees learned about these hidden cameras and microphones, they will be devastated and they will feel abused.
Privacy is very important for everyone and no one wants to be spied on. Moreover, some of the employees might consider to take legal actions against Fanuchi, Katwalski and the company. Case 7: "Speaking Out about Malt" 1. Is Mary Davis correct in asserting that Whitewater was invading her right to freedom of speech? Why or why not? Whitewater is invading the freedom of speech of Mary Davis by prohibiting her from making any further comments regarding the beer and liquor industry. Moreover, an ultimatum was set and non-compliance would mean losing her job.
2. Was Davis acting disloyally? Although Mary Davis' article was factual, she can still be regarded as disloyal to her company. As an employee for a beer and liquor company, it was unethical for her to publish an article that would cause bad press for the company. Her negative comments about the industry as a whole somehow contradict to her choice of employer. If she sincerely opposed the marketing of malt beer, then she should have shifted to another industry that would not contradict with her personal beliefs.
3. Would it be morally legitimate for Whitewater to fire Davis if she went ahead with her speaking engagement and condemned Malt Liquor? It would not be legal to dismiss the employment of Ms. Davis unless otherwise stipulated in the company's rules and regulations and employment contract of the concerned individual. If it was not stipulated, it would be illegal to fire her because of her derogatory remarks about the industry. Case 8: "Making Up Is Hard To Do 1. Does the new dress code discriminate against women?
Why or why not? The dress code that was newly enforced by the company does not discriminate against women since the requirements do not violate any rights of women. It was only enforced to require women to wear business attires and make up which is not disrespectful or unmannerly at all. If the women were required to wear implicit and sexually-oriented outfits, then that can be considered as discriminating and disrespectful for the rights of women. 2. Does the dress code violates any other of Hannah's rights?
Ethically speaking, the dress code did not violate the human rights of Hannah. Wearing business suits and make up to work is not uncommon among women employees. The dress code was only intended for the change in the company's image. However, if Hannah cannot abide with the current rules and regulations of the company, she can always resign and find another job that would suit her preferences for wardrobe and work attire. Although she has the right to choose, she also has the responsibility to abide with the company's regulations as long as these are not illegal and