Business Law And Ethical Behavior Module 03 Case Study

Business Law And Ethical Behavior Module 03 Case Studyinstructions

Business Law and Ethical Behavior - Module 03 Case Study Instructions: Use the following case study in the written assignment. Sandra is a bright and educated 45-year-old woman who is the current head of human resources in a rather large company. She began with the company out of high school at age 18 and has worked her way up through the addition of a bachelor’s degree and master's degree to the current position she holds. On Thursday afternoon, Sandra learns that her company is considering bringing back an employee from years ago that she had a sexual harassment encounter with, with her being the victim of said encounter. Days after the encounter he put in his two weeks' notice and left the company for undisclosed reasons.

Sandra never mentioned the incident to anyone, putting it behind her since he left the company. As Sandra looks over his resume to assess whether or not to recommend him as a hire, it is clear that he has the skills to turn around the floundering, yet key, division of the company and no one else even comes close experience and skill wise. What should she do?

Paper For Above instruction

In the intricate landscape of business ethics and legal responsibilities, the situation presented in this case study underscores critical challenges faced by human resources professionals. Sandra’s dilemma revolves around balancing her ethical obligations, legal considerations, and professional integrity when evaluating a former employee with a history of sexual harassment allegations. This case prompts a thorough analysis of ethical principles, employment law, and organizational policies, highlighting the importance of transparency, fairness, and compliance in decision-making processes within the corporate sphere.

At the core of Sandra’s ethical dilemma is the question of whether or not to recommend a former employee who has a problematic history, despite their valuable skill set. Ethically, she must consider the implications of her decision on various stakeholders—her company, its employees, and the victim of the harassment. The principle of justice demands that she treat all candidates fairly, ensuring that her decision does not inadvertently enable or condone inappropriate behavior. Moreover, her obligation to prevent future harassment aligns with the duty of a human resources professional to foster a safe and respectful workplace environment (Ferrell et al., 2019).

Legally, the situation is equally complex. Employment laws in many jurisdictions prohibit discrimination based on past misconduct unless it is directly relevant to job performance or safety. The fact that the harassment occurred years ago and the offending individual left voluntarily might suggest that legal liabilities are limited, especially if the incident was not disclosed previously. However, federal laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibit workplace harassment, and employers could face liability if they rehire someone with a history of misconduct, particularly if known or should have been known to the company (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 2020). Therefore, Sandra must carefully evaluate whether re-employing this individual aligns with legal standards and organizational policies.

Organizational policies additionally play a pivotal role. Many companies have strict anti-harassment policies, background check procedures, and rehire guidelines designed to prevent the recurrence of problematic behaviors. If such policies exist, they might explicitly prohibit rehiring individuals with certain histories of misconduct. Conversely, if the policies are silent or permissive, Sandra has more discretion but must still act ethically and responsibly, considering the potential damage to the company’s reputation and employee morale if inappropriate behavior were to resurface.

From a moral perspective, Sandra must confront her own feelings and the potential biases influencing her decision. Her personal experience with the harassment claim introduces the possibility of emotional conflict, which, while understandable, must be managed professionally. Ethical decision-making models, such as Kantian ethics, emphasize duty and universal principles—meaning Sandra should act according to principles she can endorse universally, such as fairness, non-retaliation, and the prohibition of harassment (Crane & Matten, 2016). Alternatively, utilitarianism suggests she should choose the action that maximizes overall well-being and minimizes harm, which might favor rejecting the rehire to prevent potential harm or reintegration of past misconduct.

In addition to theoretical considerations, practical steps involve thorough background checks, consultations with legal counsel, and an assessment of the risk factors involved. Transparency with company leadership and possibly the victim are also critical components, especially if the harasser’s re-employment could trigger emotional distress or legal repercussions. If the company’s policies and legal guidelines suggest that re-employment would be detrimental or violate company ethics, Sandra has an obligation to advise against recommending the candidate.

Ultimately, Sandra’s ethical obligation extends beyond immediate business gains; she must uphold the integrity of the organization and ensure a safe, respectful workplace. This might mean advocating for alternatives, such as hiring a similarly qualified candidate with a clean record, even if it involves some short-term inconvenience or costs. Her decision must be grounded in a comprehensive understanding of legal norms, organizational policies, and moral principles, ensuring her actions reflect responsible and ethical conduct.

In conclusion, Sandra’s decision demands careful deliberation, balancing the potential benefits of hiring a highly skilled individual against the moral and legal imperatives to foster a harassment-free work environment. Ethical leadership in such situations involves transparency, adherence to legal standards, respect for all parties involved, and unwavering commitment to organizational integrity. By following these principles, Sandra can make a decision that aligns with both her professional responsibilities and her moral values, ultimately contributing to a positive and ethical workplace culture.

References

• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. Oxford University Press.
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (2020). Sexual Harassment. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm
• Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2019). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making & Cases. Cengage Learning.
• Jennings, M. M. (2019). Business Ethics: Case Studies and Selected Readings. Cengage Learning.
• Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding ethical behavior—Frameworks, theories, and models. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(2), 251–263.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Shaw, W. H., & Barry, V. (2016). Moral Accountability and Corporate Ethics. Ethical Theory and Business, 11th Edition, Cengage Learning.
• Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2017). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How to Do It Right. Wiley.
• Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics Programmatic Structures and Contractual Arrangements. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 367–390.
• Waddock, S. (2008). Building the Responsible Enterprise: Where Vision and Action Converge. Greenleaf Publishing.