A Woman Is Sexually Harassed By A Senior Executive 415234 ✓ Solved

A woman is sexually harassed by a top-level senior e

A woman is sexually harassed by a top-level senior executive in a large company. She sues the company, and during settlement discussions she is offered an extremely large monetary settlement. In the agreement, the woman is required to confirm that the executive did nothing wrong, and after the agreement is signed the woman is prohibited from discussing anything about the incident publicly. Before the date scheduled to sign the settlement agreement, the woman's lawyer mentions that she has heard the executive has done this before, and the settlement amount is very large because the company probably had a legal obligation to dismiss the executive previously. The company however wants to keep the executive because he is a big money maker for the company.

What are the issues of integrity, ethics and social responsibility posed in the case study? Identify and clearly describe all the issues.

What options does the woman have and what ethical theories (e.g. utilitarianism, deontology, etc.) can she use to help guide her decision making? You may argue more than one theory. Cite your sources.

What additional sources or case studies can you use to support your idea(s) about what she should do and why? Cite your sources.

What ethical theories can the company use to justify their decisions? Cite your sources.

Paper For Above Instructions

Executive summary

This essay analyzes the ethical, integrity and social responsibility issues raised by a sexual‑harassment claim against a senior executive, the pressured settlement terms that require denial of wrongdoing and a gag on disclosure, and a corporate preference to retain a profitable but allegedly abusive leader. The analysis identifies relevant stakeholders, evaluates the options available to the victim, applies ethical theories to guide decision‑making, presents supporting case studies and sources, and outlines the ethical rationales the company might invoke to justify retaining the executive.

Issues of integrity, ethics and social responsibility

The case raises multiple interlinked issues. First, there is an integrity issue: requiring the complainant to sign a statement that the executive did nothing wrong constitutes coercion and a potential falsification of facts. This undermines trust and violates moral duties of honesty (Kant, 1785). Second, the use of confidentiality clauses to silence victims prevents accountability, enables repeat offending, and prioritizes reputation management over victim welfare and public safety (EEOC, 2016). Third, the company’s decision calculus—retaining a high‑performing executive suspected of serial misconduct—poses a conflict between profit motive and corporate social responsibility: it privileges shareholder returns over stakeholder safety (Freeman, 1984; Carroll, 1991). Fourth, there are legal and regulatory risks: if prior knowledge of misconduct existed, the company may have had an obligation to act, exposing it to liability for negligent retention (EEOC, 2016). Finally, the case raises social justice concerns: silencing a victim disproportionately harms individuals and perpetuates workplace cultures in which abuse is tolerated, undermining equality and dignity (McDonald, 2012).

Options available to the woman and ethical frameworks to guide her

The woman’s options include: (1) accept the settlement and sign the non‑disclosure / exculpatory clause; (2) refuse the settlement and proceed to trial or continue litigation; (3) negotiate amended terms—e.g., keep confidentiality limited but remove language asserting the executive’s innocence; (4) accept settlement but later become a confidential whistleblower to regulators under legal exceptions; or (5) pursue public disclosure through safe channels or collective action with other victims if present. Each option has ethical trade‑offs.

Utilitarianism advises choosing the action that maximizes overall well‑being (Mill, 1863). From a utilitarian perspective, refusing a gag that enables further harm could prevent future victims and thus yield greater aggregate good, even if it sacrifices a large financial settlement. Deontological ethics emphasizes duty and rights (Kant, 1785): the woman has a moral right to honesty and to be treated with respect; signing a false statement violates a duty to truth and undermines moral agency. Virtue ethics focuses on character and moral courage; speaking out or refusing complicity aligns with virtues of integrity and justice (MacIntyre, 1981). Stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) suggests evaluating obligations to coworkers, shareholders, customers and wider society; the employee’s safety and dignity should be prioritized over protecting an abuser for profit. A combined approach could be adopted: prioritize deontological duties (do not lie or be complicit) while considering utilitarian consequences (weighing harm reduction for others).

Supporting case studies and sources

Several high‑profile cases illustrate the dangers of silencing settlements and the corporate consequences of protecting powerful perpetrators. The Harvey Weinstein revelations demonstrate how NDAs and secret settlements allowed serial abuse to continue, but public disclosure triggered industry‑wide accountability and legal reforms (McDonald, 2012; Dobbin & Kalev, 2016). The Fox News and Uber scandals similarly show organizational reputational damage and legal liabilities when companies tolerate misconduct to protect revenue generators (EEOC, 2016). Empirical literature on workplace harassment shows that nondisclosure and informal resolution mechanisms frequently fail victims and perpetuate abuse (McDonald, 2012). Additionally, whistle‑blowing research indicates that public disclosure and collective reporting can catalyze systemic change, though at personal risk, and thus robust legal protections and supportive organizational reforms are critical (Near & Miceli, 1985). These sources support advising the woman toward solutions that both protect her rights and reduce future harm, such as negotiating for truthful terms, seeking systemic remedies, or leveraging regulatory reporting mechanisms.

Ethical theories the company could use to justify its decisions

The company might invoke shareholder‑value arguments, arguing that retaining a revenue‑generating executive serves owners’ interests (Friedman, 1970). From a utilitarian managerial perspective, executives may argue that keeping the individual maximizes shareholder wealth, employee job security, and economic value. The company could also attempt a consequentialist defence that the monetary settlement compensates the victim and prevents destabilizing publicity, thereby preserving jobs and services. Alternatively, ethical egoism could be invoked—prioritizing corporate survival and profitability. However, these justifications are ethically fraught: prioritizing profits at the cost of safety risks violating duties to employees, undermines corporate social responsibility, and can produce long‑term harm for stakeholders and the company’s reputation (Carroll, 1991; Bowie, 1999).

Recommendation

Balancing ethical theories and practical realities, the recommended course is for the woman to refuse any provision that requires her to deny wrongdoing. She should seek to renegotiate the settlement to remove exculpatory language and to limit confidentiality in ways that allow reporting to regulators and prevent future harm. If negotiation fails, pursuing litigation or leveraging whistle‑blower protections is ethically defensible under deontological and utilitarian reasoning because it honors truth, prevents further abuse, and serves the broader social good. Simultaneously, regulators and institutions should discourage coercive NDAs and promote transparent accountability mechanisms to align corporate practice with social responsibility (EEOC, 2016; Dobbin & Kalev, 2016).

Conclusion

The case presents clear conflicts between profit motives and moral duties to protect employees and uphold truth. Ethical analysis using deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics and stakeholder theory supports refusing to be complicit in silence or falsehood. The woman should prioritize truthful terms and consider litigation or protected disclosure if necessary. Companies should not justify retention of abusive leaders on short‑term economic grounds; doing so violates corporate social responsibility and risks long‑term harm to stakeholders and the enterprise.

References

• Carroll, A.B. (1991) 'The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders', Business Horizons, 34(4), pp. 39–48.
• Dobbin, F. and Kalev, A. (2016) 'Why Diversity Programs Fail', Harvard Business Review, July–August.
• EEOC (2016) 'Sexual Harassment', U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Available at: https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment (Accessed: date).
• Friedman, M. (1970) 'The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits', The New York Times Magazine, 13 September.
• Kant, I. (1785) Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Translated edition. (Any modern edition).
• MacIntyre, A. (1981) After Virtue. 2nd edn. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
• McDonald, P. (2012) 'Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: A review of the literature', International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(1), pp. 1–17.
• Mill, J.S. (1863) Utilitarianism. (Any modern edition).
• Near, J.P. and Miceli, M.P. (1985) 'Organizational Dissidence: The Case of Whistle‑Blowing', Journal of Business Ethics, 4(1), pp. 1–16.
• Bowie, N.E. (1999) Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.