Overview
This assignment will give you the opportunity to choose a case study, and then write about the ethical implications and the impact of the events that are described. Each case study includes a set of questions that you should answer. You can choose either Case Study 9.1: Unprofessional Conduct, or Case Study 8.4: Have Gun Will Travel.
You will be graded on the following criteria:
Write a four to six (4-6) page paper in which you:
- Analyze the questions associated with your chosen case study and discuss them using concepts you learned in this course.
- Explain your rationale for each of your answers to your chosen case study.
-
Format your assignment according to the following
formatting requirements:
- Typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides.
- Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page is not included in the required page length.
- Cite your textbook as a reference.
- Include a reference page. Citations and references must follow APA format. The reference page is not included in the required page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
- Determine the considerations for and process of ethical business decision making to balance corporate and social responsibilities and address moral, economic, and legal concerns.
- Analyze selected business situations using the predominant ethical theories, such as utilitarian, Kantian, and virtue ethics to guide ethical business decision making.
- Determine the implications and impact of various civil liberty laws in the workplace, such as hiring, promotion, discipline, discharge, and wage discrimination.
- Use technology and information resources to research issues in business ethics.
- Write clearly and concisely about business ethics using proper writing mechanics.
Click here to view the grading rubric.
Choose one (1) of the following case studies for Assignment 2:
Case 9.1: Unprofessional Conduct?
Located on page 342 of your textbook
- Do you believe the Board of Education violated her right to privacy? Were they justified in firing her? Explain two to three (2-3) major reasons why or why not.
- Was Pettit’s behavior unprofessional or immoral? Do you believe she was unfit to teach? Provide a rationale for your position.
- If teachers have good performance inside the classroom, should they also be held to a higher moral standard outside the classroom? Explain why or why not.
- Analyze five (5) behaviors you believe would show unprofessional or immoral conduct for a teacher.
TEACHING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN with intellectual
disabilities requires skill, patience, and devotion, and those who
undertake this task are among the unsung heroes of our society.
Their difficult and challenging work rarely brings the prestige or
financial rewards it deserves. Mrs. Pettit was one of those
dedicated teachers. Licensed to teach in California, she had been
working with mentally challenged children for over thirteen years
when her career came to an abrupt end. Throughout that career, her
competence was never questioned, and the evaluations of her school
principal were always positive. Teaching was not Pettit’s only interest, however. She and her
husband viewed with favor various “nonconventional sexual
lifestyles,” including “wife swapping.” Because so-called sexual
liberation was a hot topic at the time, the Pettits were invited to
discuss their ideas on two local television shows. Although they
wore disguises, at least one fellow teacher recognized them and
discussed Mrs. Pettit’s views with colleagues. A year later Pettit,
then forty-eight years old, and her husband joined “The Swingers,”
a private club in Los Angeles that sponsored parties intended to
promote diverse sexual activities among its members. An undercover
police officer, Sergeant Berk, visited one of those parties at a
private residence. Amid a welter of sexual activity, he observed
Mrs. Pettit perform fellatio on three different men in a one-hour
period. Pettit was arrested and charged with oral copulation, which at
the time contravened the California Penal Code (although now it
does only if one of the parties is under eighteen). After a plea
bargain was arranged, she pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor of
outraging public decency and paid a fine. The school district
renewed her teaching contract the next academic year, but two years
later, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her. The
State Board of Education found no reason to complain about her
services as a teacher, and it conceded that she was unlikely to
repeat her sexual misconduct. But the Board revoked her elementary
school life diploma—that is, her license to teach—on the ground
that by engaging in immoral and unprofessional conduct at the
party, she had demonstrated that she was unfit to teach. Pettit fought the loss of her license all the way to the
California Supreme Court, which upheld the decision of the Board of
Education.
116
In an earlier case, the court had reversed the firing of
a public school teacher for unspecified homosexual conduct,
concluding that a teacher’s actions could not constitute “immoral
or unprofessional conduct” or “moral turpitude” unless there was
clear evidence of unfitness to teach. But Pettit’s case was
different, the court hastened to explain. The conduct in the earlier case had not been criminal, oral
copulation had not been involved, and the conduct had been private.
Further, in that case the Board had acted with insufficient
evidence of unfitness to teach; by contrast, three school
administrators had testified that in their opinion, Pettit’s
conduct proved her unfit to teach. These experts worried that she
would inject her views of sexual morality into the classroom, and
they doubted that she could act as a moral example to the children
she taught. Yet teachers, the court reaffirmed, are supposed to
serve as exemplars, and the Education Code makes it a statutory
duty of teachers to “endeavor to impress upon the minds of the
pupils the principles of morality … and to instruct them in manners
and morals.” In a vigorous dissent, Justice Tobringer rejected the opinion of
the majority, arguing that no evidence had established that Pettit
was not fit to teach. The three experts didn’t consider her record;
they couldn’t point to any past misconduct with students, nor did
they suggest any reason to anticipate future problems. They simply
assumed that the fact of her sexual acts at the “swingers” party
itself demonstrated that she would be unable to set a proper
example or to teach her pupils moral principles. Such an attitude is unrealistic, Tobringer argued, when studies
show that 75 to 80 percent of the women of Pettit’s educational
level and age range engage in oral copulation. The majority opinion
“is blind to the reality of sexual behavior” and unrealistically
assumes that “teachers in their private lives should exemplify
Victorian principles of sexual morality.” Pettit’s actions were
private and could not have affected her teaching ability. Had there
not been clandestine surveillance of the party, the whole issue
would never have arisen.
Case 8.4: Have Gun, Will Travel…to Work
Located on page 312 of your textbook
ORGANIZATIONAL THEORISTS AND EMPLOYEE advocates
frequently emphasize the importance, from both a moral and a
practical point of view, of companies’ respecting the rights of
their employees. Many employees spend long hours at work and remain
tethered to the job by phone or computer even when they are
off-site; not just their careers but also their friendships, social
identity, and emotional lives are tied up with their work. All the
more reason, it seems, that companies should recognize and respect
their moral, political, and legal rights. But enshrined in our
Constitution is one right that frequently gets overlooked in
discussions of the workplace: the right to bear arms.
88
In 2002 Weyerhaeuser, the Seattle-based timber-products company,
fired several employees at an Oklahoma plant who were discovered to
have violated company policy by keeping guns in their vehicles.
Their dismissal provoked a response from the National Rifle
Association (NRA) and other gun-rights advocates, which since then
have been lobbying for legislation that would make it illegal for
companies to bar employees from leaving guns in their cars in
company parking lots. Although no state requires companies to allow
workers to carry weapons into the workplace, four states have
passed laws guaranteeing them the right to keep guns in their cars,
and several other states are weighing whether to follow suit. Gun
advocates argue that licensed gun owners should have access to
their weapons in case they need them on the trek to and from work.
If an employer can ban guns from workers’ cars, “it would be a
wrecking ball to the Second Amendment” of the U.S. Constitution,
says Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA. Brian Siebel, a senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent
Gun Violence, thinks otherwise. He sees these laws as “a systematic
attempt to force guns into every nook and cranny in society and
prohibit anyone, whether it’s private employers or college campuses
… from barring guns from their premises.” But that’s not how UCLA
law professor Eugene Volokh looks at it. “It’s part of the general
movement,” he says, “to allow people to have guns for self-defense
not only at home, but in public places where they’re most likely
needed.” For his part, LaPierre of the NRA contends that the legal
right of people to have guns for personal protection is largely
nullified if employers can ban guns from the parking lot. “Saying
you can protect yourself with a firearm when you get off work late
at night,” he argues, “is meaningless if you can’t keep it in the
trunk of your car when you’re at work.” Interpreting the somewhat ambiguous language of the Second
Amendment is not easy. It only says, “A well-regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” All jurists
agree, however, that the Second Amendment does not make all forms
of gun control unconstitutional and that, like the rest of the Bill
of Rights, it places restrictions only on what government, not
private parties, may do. In particular, the Second Amendment does not give gun owners a
constitutionally protected right to carry their weapons onto
somebody else’s private property against the wishes of the owner.
“If I said to somebody, ‘You can’t bring your gun into my house,’
that person’s rights would not be violated,” explains Mark Tushnet,
a Harvard law professor. For this reason, the American Bar
Association sides with business owners and endorses “the
traditional property rights of private employers and other private
property owners to exclude” people with firearms. Steve Halverson,
president of a Jacksonville, Florida, construction company agrees
that business owners should be allowed to decide whether to allow
weapons in their parking lots. “The larger issue is property
rights,” he says, “and whether you as a homeowner and I as a
business owner ought to have the right to say what comes onto our
property.” However, Tennessee state senator Paul Stanley, a
Republican sponsor of legislation requiring that guns be allowed in
company parking lots, begs to differ. “I respect property and
business rights,” he says. “But I also think that some issues need
to overshadow this…. We have a right to keep and bear arms.” Other
gun advocates think that the property-rights argument is a red
herring. Corporations are not individuals, they argue, but
artificial legal entities, whose “rights” are entirely at the
discretion of the state. What’s really going on, they think, is
that some companies have an anti-gun political agenda. Property rights, however, aren’t the only thing that companies
are concerned about. Business and other organizations have a widely
acknowledged duty to keep their workplaces—and their employees—as
safe as possible, and that means, many of them believe, keeping
their campuses free of weapons. There are more than five hundred
workplace homicides per year; in addition, 1.5 million employees
are assaulted at work, many of them by coworkers or former
employees. Having guns anywhere in the vicinity, many employers
worry, can only make volatile situations more deadly. “There’s no
need to allow guns [into] parking lots,” says the Brady Center’s
Siebel. “The increased risks are obvious.” Steve Halveson drives
that point home, too. “I object to anyone telling me that we can’t
… take steps necessary to protect our employees.” For him it’s no
different from banning guns from his construction sites or
requiring workers to wear hard hats. “The context is worker safety,
and that’s why it’s important.”
Case Study:












Other samples, services and questions:
When you use PaperHelp, you save one valuable — TIME
You can spend it for more important things than paper writing.