ORIGINAL THOUGHTS ONLY
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 studentâ€™s name, the professorâ€™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 Pettitâ€™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.
Case 8.4: Have Gun, Will Travelâ€¦to Work
Located on page 312 of your textbook
- Do you have not only a legal, but a moral right to own a gun? Do you believe that you have either a moral or a legal right to park a car with a loaded gun in a privately owned parking lot, regardless of what the lotâ€™s owner wants?
- In your view, do employees have either a moral or a legal right to park cars with guns in them in the company parking lot? What do you believe should be the property rights and safety concerns of employers?
- Do you think state legislatures are right to get involved, or should the matter be left to companies and employees to settle?
- Because the workplace is the companyâ€™s private property, the company could choose to allow employees to bring guns not only into the parking lot, but also into the workplace itself. Are there ever circumstances in which doing so might be reasonable? Or would the presence of guns automatically violate the rights of other employees to be guaranteed a safe working environment?
THIS IS CASE 9.1
Mrs. Pettit was a Special Education teacher at elementary school for over 13 years
She was a dedicated teacher and she always recieved positive reviews from the school’s principal
Mrs. Pettit was also a swinger; she and her husband believed in nonconventional sexual lifesyles
Because of their beliefs, they were asked to discuss their lifestyle on 2 local television shows
they wore disguises but were recognized by one of Mrs. Pettit’s co-workers
He talked to other colleagues about what he heard
A year later Mrs. Pettit and her husband joined ” The Swingers” a private club that promotes diverse sexual activities amoung its members
At one of those parties Sergant Berk, an undercover police officer, observed Mrs, Pettit preforming oral sex on 3 different men in a 1 hour period
She was arrested and charged with oral copulation, which at the time broke the California Penal Code
She took a plea bargain, pleading guilty to the misdemeanor of outraging public decency and paid a fine
the school renewed her teaching contract for the next year, but 2 years later, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her
the state board of education found no reason to complain, but the board revoked her license
Ethical Issues Involved
Does a teachers personal sex life affect thier ability to teach students?
Deos being a member of a swingers club make someone a less moral person?
Would you be comfortable with your child being taught by a swinger?
The actions of Mrs. Pettit were consensual and took place amoung willing adults. if people choose to live the swinger lifestyle and want to have parties to exchange partners that is thier business and if someone does not like what is going on they can choose not to attend swinger parties.
during the late 1960’s it was against the law to behave in the manor that Mrs. pettit did, so she should be punished for her behavior.
the Board said Mrs. Pettit demonstrated that she was unfit to teach because she engaged in immoral and unprofessional conduct at the party
Mrs. Pettit took her case to the California Supreme Court where they agreed with the board
3 school administrators had testified that in their opinion, her conduct proved she was unfit to teach
these experts worried she would interject her views of sexual morality into the classroom, and did not think she could act as a moral example to students
the law changed to allow this behavior as long as all parties invoved are 18 and over
Teachers should not be punished for off the clock behavior as long as it does not interfer with their ability to get thier job done
Teachers should have the right to have any type of personal life they choose as long as they do not force their beliefs on others
ORGANI ZATIONAL THEORI STS AND EMPLOYEE advocates frequently emphasize the importance, fromboth a moral and a practical point of view, of companiesâ€™ 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. 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 workersâ€™ cars, â€œ it would be a wrecking ball to the Second Amendmentâ€ 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 â€œ a systematic attempt to force guns into every nook and cranny in society and prohibit anyone, whether itâ€™s private employers or college campuses . . . from barring guns from their premises.â€But thatâ€™s not how UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh looks at it. â€œ Itâ€™s part of the general movement,â€ he says, â€œ to allow people to have guns for self- defense not only at home, but in public places where theyâ€™re most likely needed.â€ 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. â€œ
Saying you can protect yourself with a firearm when you get off work late at night,â€ he argues, â€œ is meaningless if you canâ€™t keep it in the trunk of your car when youâ€™re at work.â€ Interpreting the
somewhat ambiguous language of the Second Amendment is not easy. It only says, â€œ 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.â€ 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 Âweapons onto somebody elseâ€™s private property against the wishes of the owner. â€œ If I said to somebody, â€˜ You canâ€™t bring your gun into my house,â€™ that personâ€™s rights would not be violated,â€ explains Mark Tushnet, a Harvard law professor. For this reason, the American Bar Association sides with business owners and endorses â€œ the traditional property rights of private employers and other private property owners to excludeâ€ 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. â€œ The larger issue is property rights,â€ he says, â€œ and whether you as a homeowner and I as a business owner ought to have the right to say what comes onto our property.â€ However, Tennessee state senator Paul Stanley, a
Republican sponsor of legislation requiring that guns be allowed in company parking lots, begs to differ.â€œ I respect property and business rights,â€ he says. â€œ But I also think that some issues need to overshadow this. . . . We have a right to keep and bear arms.â€ Other gun advocates think that the property- rights argument is a red herring. Corporations are not individuals, they argue, but artificial legal entities, whose â€œ rightsâ€ are entirely at the discretion of the state. Whatâ€™s really going on, they think, is that some companies have an anti- gun political agenda. Property rights, however, arenâ€™t the only thing that companies are concerned about. Business and other organizations have a widely acknowledged duty to keep their workplacesâ€” and their employeesâ€” 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. â€œ Thereâ€™s no need to allow guns [ into] parking lots,â€ says the Brady Centerâ€™s Siebel. â€œ The increased risks are Âobvious.â€ Steve Halveson drives that point home, too. â€œ I object to anyone telling me that we canâ€™t . . . take steps necessary to protect our employees.â€ For him
itâ€™s no different from banning guns from his construction sites or requiring workers to wear hard hats. â€œ The context is worker safety, and thatâ€™s why itâ€™s important.â€