Case 1,2,3 and 5 Do not write an essay. Answer each numbered point separately and number your answers to…

Case 1,2,3 and 5 Do not write an essay. Answer each numbered point separately and number your answers to correspond to the questions/directions. For the Thiroux analysis, make a separate paragraph for each principle. You may single space your answers. You do not need to copy the full case – simply head your answer CASE 1 – DICK AND JANE – 25 POINTS (ALL STUDENTS) Dick and Jane have insured their house and cars with Farmer’s Mutual for 10 years. During this time, they filed only one claim for $500, and the premiums have risen 100%. Two weeks ago, while backing out of the garage, Jane damaged the right fender. They didn’t fix it, and yesterday, while Jane was parked at the supermarket, someone hit the right side of the car, damaging everything but the right fender. They are taking the car in for repairs, and are deciding whether to include the right fender (undamaged in the collision) in the estimate for the insurance company. The cost of repair of the fender is much more than their deductible allowance. Dick and Jane argue that the insurance company has made thousands of dollars from their premiums alone, not to mention all the other people they insure, so they’ll hardly miss the few thousands that their repairs will cost. They argue that many of their friends have done the same – included items that were not part of actual collision damage. They also reason that it’s unlikely that they will be discovered, because the fender could easily have been damaged in the collision. You are Dick (or Jane) – how should you decide? 1. Who are the stakeholders? 3PTS 2. Clarify the facts – what are the important facts in the problem? 2 PT 3. What is the ethical dilemma (the ethical problem – the ethical decision that must be made)? 3PTS 4. For this case, you may apply the Thiroux principles, or you may apply one of the other approaches (Justice test, Common Good test, etc.) If you apply the Thiroux principles, follow the directions found at CASE 2 – THE IMMIGRANT. If you apply one of the other approaches, first introduce and define the test, then explain why this test (Justice, Common Good, etc.) is the best method of resolving this moral dilemma. 6 PTS 5. Apply the test. 6 PTS 6. With respect to this situation, what are the strengths of the test you chose? 2.5 PT 7. With respect to this situation, what are the weaknesses of the test you chose? 2.5 PTS CASE 2 – THE IMMIGRANT – 25 POINTS (ALL STUDENTS) You are a supervisor. Maria Elena is under your supervision. She is an excellent worker; she is bi-lingual and has been invaluable in helping you to communicate with other Latino workers in your section. Over the past three weeks, however, you’ve noticed Maria Elena becoming very upset and her work is suffering. You take her aside and ask her what’s wrong. She tells you this story: She came to the United States ten years ago from Mexico with her child, Miguel, who is now 9 years old. They entered the country on a visitor’s visa that has expired, and Maria Elena now uses a Social Security card which she acquired illegally. Maria has since had another child, Jose, born in the United States, who is a U.S. citizen. Her common-law husband, Luis, using a false green card, now works as a busboy for a restaurant, which withholds part of his salary for taxes. In Mexico, Maria Elena and Luis lived in a small village where it was impossible to earn more than $3 a day. Both had sixth-grade educations, common in their village. Life was difficult, but they did not decide to leave until they realized the future would be bleak for their child “All the money we make is for Miguel and Jose,” she tells you. “We work hard for their education and their future.” Now, however, her mother in Mexico is dying, and Maria Elena must return home, leaving Luis and the children. She does not want to leave them because she might not be able to get back into the United States, but she is pretty sure she can find a way to return if she has enough money. That is her problem: She doesn’t have enough money to make certain she can get back. Maria Elena doesn’t ask you for money, only tells you so you understand why she is so distracted. After she tells you her story, she becomes too distraught to continue talking. Your employer has recently had a special meeting of all supervisors, in which they advised them to immediately report any instance of an undocumented worker and explained that the company faced fines and penalties for employing undocumented workers.* You now know she is an undocumented immigrant, working for your employer. What should you do? (You are the supervisor) *There are civil and criminal penalties for hiring illegal aliens. Sec. 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and 8 U.S.C. 1324a, makes it unlawful for any person knowingly to hire, recruit or refer for a fee any alien not authorized to work. An employer that violates these laws can face penalties of: • $250 to $2,000 fine for each unauthorized individual; • $2,000 to $5,000 for each employee if the employer has previously been in violation; or • $3,000 to $10,000 for each individual if the employer was subject to more than one cease and desist order. The employer could also be fined $100 to $1,000 for each individual “paperwork” violation. The criminal penalties for a pattern and practice violation can be up to $3,000 for each unauthorized alien, imprisonment up to six months, or both. 1. Who are the stakeholders? 3PTS 2. Clarify the facts – what are the important facts in the problem? 2 PT 3. What is the ethical dilemma (the ethical problem – the ethical decision that must be made)? 3PTS 4. Apply the Thiroux approach to this case. Identify and interpret the relevant ethical principles (Value of Life, Goodness or Rightness, Justice or Fairness, Truth-telling or honesty, Individual Freedom). Some principles will relate more closely to the problem; some might not be applicable at all. 6 PTS 5. Resolve conflicts among the principles (which principle seems most applicable? Which do you think is most important with respect to this case? 6 PTS 6. State the moral decision 1 PT 7. Formulate a course of action 4 PTS CASE 3 – WHALE MARKET OWES ME – 25 POINTS (ALL STUDENTS) Marla works for Whale Market, Inc., a huge retailer that sells a variety of products, including food, clothing, household furnishings, etc. She is a “sales associate” and, like the many other employees of the store who are classed as sales associates, she is scheduled for 30 hours a week and is therefore considered part time; she receives no benefits and is paid slightly more than minimum wage. She is required to wear a white blouse and dark slacks, which she must supply at her own expense. She gets two 15 minute breaks and a half hour for lunch. Recently, the store laid off a number of associates and told those remaining, including Marla, they would have to cover for those positions, effectively increasing Marla’s work load by about 25%. Marla reads that Whale Market, Inc., has had a banner year. Its profits are at a record high, she reads, primarily because of increased efficiency and higher worker productivity. “So,” Marla reasons, “Whale Market is making me work harder, paying me the same amount of money, and making higher profits. I’m doing the work of two employees; they should be paying me double!” Angry at what she feels is an injustice, Marla begins smuggling out small amounts of grocery items and clothing when she leaves each day. “This will help make up for what Whale Market is cheating me out of,” Marla reasons. 1. Who are the stakeholders? 3PTS 2. Clarify the facts – what are the important facts in the problem? 2 PT 3. What is the ethical dilemma (the ethical problem – the ethical decision that must be made)? 3PTS 4. For this case, you may apply the Thiroux principles, or you may apply one of the other approaches (Justice test, Common Good test, etc.) If you apply the Thiroux principles, follow the directions found at CASE 2 – THE IMMIGRANT. If you apply one of the other approaches, first introduce and define the test, then explain why this test (Justice, Common Good, etc.) is the best method of resolving this moral dilemma. 6 PTS 5. Apply the test. 6 PTS 6. With respect to this situation, what are the strengths of the test you chose? 2.5 PT 7. With respect to this situation, what are the weaknesses of the test you chose? 2.5 PTS CASE 5 – THE WHISTLEBLOWER – 25 POINTS – DEVRY STUDENTS ONLY Chantale Leroux works as a clerk for Avco Environmental Services, a small toxic-waste disposal company. The company has a contract to dispose of medical waste from a local hospital. During the course of her work, Chantale comes across documents that suggest that Avco has actually been disposing of some of this medical waste in a local municipal landfill. Chantale is shocked. She knows this practice is illegal. And even though only a small portion of the medical waste that Avco handles is being disposed of this way, any amount at all seems a worrisome threat to public health. Chantale gathers together the appropriate documents and takes them to her immediate superior, Dave Lamb. Dave says, “Look, I don’t think that sort of thing is your concern, or mine. We’re in charge of record-keeping, not making decisions about where this stuff gets dumped. I suggest you drop it.” The next day, Chantale decides to go one step further, and talk to Angela van Wilgenburg, the company’s Operations Manager. Angela is clearly irritated. Angela says, “This isn’t your concern. Look, these are the sorts of cost-cutting moves that let a little company like ours compete with our giant competitors. Besides, everyone knows that the regulations in this area are overly cautious. There’s no real danger to anyone from the tiny amount of medical waste that ‘slips’ into the municipal dump. I consider this matter closed.” Chantale considers her situation. The message from her superiors was loud and clear. She strongly suspects that making further noises about this issue could jeopardize her job. Further, she generally has faith in the company’s management. They’ve always seemed like honest, trustworthy people. But she was troubled by this apparent disregard for public safety. On the other hand, she asks herself whether maybe Angela was right in arguing that the danger was minimal. Chantale thinks about contacting an old friend who works for the local newspaper. You are Chantale. Examine this problem using the Thiroux approach or any test of your choice. Notice that the questions are slightly different here than they are for the other cases. 1. Who are the stakeholders? 2 PTS 2. Clarify the facts – what are the important facts in the problem? 2 PT 3. What is the ethical dilemma? 3PTS 4. Apply the Thiroux approach to this case. Identify and interpret the relevant ethical principles (Value of Life, Goodness or Rightness, Justice or Fairness, Truth-telling or honesty, Individual Freedom). Some principles will relate more closely to the problem; some might not be applicable at all. 6 PTS 5. Resolve conflicts among the principles (which principle seems most applicable? Which do you think is most important with respect to this case? 6 PTS 6. What are the reasonable limits of Chantale’s loyalty to her employer? 3 pts 7. Would it make a difference if Chantale had a position of greater authority? Why? 3 pts