Case Study: Substance Abuse

by Stephen Adams
Graphics and Commercial Art
Fred, a 17-year employee with Sam's Sauna, was fired for poor job performance and poor
attendance, after accruing five disciplinary penalties within a 12-month period under the
company's progressive disciplinary policy. A week later, Fred told his former supervisor
that he had a substance abuse problem.
Although there was no employee assistance program in place and the company had not
been aware of Fred's condition, their personnel director assisted Fred in obtaining
treatment by allowing him to continue receiving insurance benefits and approved his
unemployment insurance claim.
Fred subsequently requested reinstatement, maintaining that he had been rehabilitated
since his discharge and was fully capable of being a productive employee. He pointed to
a letter written by his treatment counselor, which said that his prognosis for leading a
"clean, sober lifestyle" was a big incentive for him. Fred pleaded for another chance,
arguing that his past problems resulted from drug addiction and that Sam's Saunas should
have recognized and provided treatment for the problem.
Sam's Saunas countered that Fred should have notified his supervisor of his drug
problem, and that everything possible had been done to help him receive treatment.
Moreover, the company stressed that the employee had been fired for poor performance
and absenteeism. Use of the progressive discipline policy had been necessary because the
employee had committed a string of offenses over the course of a year, including careless
workmanship, distracting others, wasting time, and disregarding safety rules.
Questions:
Should Fred be reinstated?
Was the company fair to Fred in helping him receive treatment?
Did the personnel director behave ethically toward Fred?
Did he act ethically for his company?
Would it be fair to other employees to reinstate Fred?

Case Study: Cement For Sale

by Robert Solomon and
Kathleen Higgins
Philosophy
University of Texas at Austin
You own a cement company, and deal with most the local contractors for cement, sand,
etc. You have a reputation of high quality products, and for good customer service with
your customers. Your foreman has just run the standard quality control tests you have
performed regularly on your products.
When the test results are ready, you discover that the new batch of product is 9% less
durable than your usual material. It is still well above all industry standards and meets all
building codes and requirements for the purposes for which it is intended, but it is,
nevertheless, not up to your usual standards. Throwing it away would cost your company
many thousands of dollars.
You decide to sell the cement anyway.
Questions:
Should you tell your customers?
Should you discount the price?
Should you tell your employees, so they will be knowledgeable with the customers?
Would you use this cement on foundations for your own house?

Case Study: The Magical $100,000

by Dennis Greer
Accounting
On a weekday morning in 1975, there was an anonymous phone call to a cash teller at
one of the nation's largest national banks. The anonymous caller stated that an employee
had just stolen $$100,000 from an electronics supply subsidary of the bank. The
Financial VP of the bank was notified; he called in one of the internal auditors and
assigned him to solve the case. The auditor, working in conjunction with a retired FBI
agent, employed a secretary and immediately set up an office at the electronics supply
plant. An analysis of the accounting records showed that the theft involved inventory. The
first step was to interview many of the 100 employees of the plant including all plant
officers. None of the employees knew anything about the inventory.

Second, an analysis of the Accounts Receivable records showed that a major building
construction firm only owed $9.54, though its supply trucks were always picking up large
amounts of electronic inventory. He immediately became unavailable for questioning!
Several days later the auditor was contacted by an attorney representing the building
construction firm for an appointment for his client and himself. When the auditor arrived,
the attorney stated, "I want you to know that my client has done absolutely nothing
wrong! But here is some information you might like to know." The attorney then
explained how the 30-year-old son of the president of the electronics supply plant would
sell inventory at one-half price if the construction firm made out the checks to the son
personally. They had, in effect, purchased $200,000 of inventory for only $100,000.
This information of the theft was immediately supplied to the Financial VP and the bank's
attorneys. Within 48 hours, the president of the electronics supply plant retired. His son
had fled the state and $100,000 in cash was returned to the bank.
Questions:
Did the employees know of the lost inventory?
If they did, why didn't they tell more?
Were the president of the construction firm and his employees honest?
Had they done anything wrong?
Could they be sued?
Why did the father retire?
What was his responsibility?
Should the bank's corporate officers go to the police and indite the son on grand theft?
The bank received back $100,000 from the theft. Where from?
Case Study: The Elderly Stockholder
by Kathleen Higgens and
Robert Solomon
Philosophy
University of Texas at Austin
You are the CEO of a corporation whose board has just decided to cut the dividend to the
stockholders. This is a matter of absolute confidentiality, as it could have major effects on
your stock prices if the information gets out before implementation of the cut.

At a reception, you are approached by an elderly gentleman, who retired from the
company several years ago. Virtually all of his savings and much of his retirement
income is in company stock. He asks, point blank, whether he should sell some of his
stock, in order to obtain some needed funds for living expenses. You know that he knows
a "yes" answer will indicate some dramatic decision, such as a decision to cut the
dividend, is impending. If you tell him "no," he could lose considerable value on his
stock.
Questions:
Do you tell him?
What do you say?
If you tell him, could it affect your company?
Could this affect your own job?

Case Study: The Radio Station

by Malcolm Crawford
Electronics/Pre-Engineering
Carl, an electronics maintenance expert, who had always been sympathetic to the
operators of small radio stations, agreed to take responsibility for the maintenance of a
small, local country-western radio station, and received a modest monthly retainer.
Several years later the station was sold, and Carl visited with the new owner. He offered
to spend some time answering any questions the new owner had, and to do some free
maintenance to keep the station operating properly.
Even though the terms of the sale were not made public, Carl observed that the station
was stripped of the best equipment, and this was replaced with older equipment that had
been retired from service at the station in the past. Since the new owner had a number of
other business interests, he did not spend much time at the station; he entrusted the
operation of the station to local persons with limited experience.
Questions:
Loyalty: Is Carl an agent of the previous owner or the new owner?
Is it ethical to stand by and watch the radio station be stripped and degenerate in both
operation and equipment without taking any action?

What appropriate action should be taken since the new owner is seldom present, and the
management of the station is conducted by local persons who are largely unqualified and
uncaring?
Would it be unethical to gather evidence relating to the operation and maintenance of the
station (or lack thereof) which would favor the legal position of the previous owner in
any future lawsuit, while represented as a volunteer assisting the new owner?
Should Carl try to find out who is taking the equipment out of the station?

Privacy of Abortion Clinic Records

In May, 2002, workers in a county garbage sorting center in Storm Lake, a small town in
Iowa made a gruesome discovery: the body of a newborn boy, which had been
dismembered by the sorting machines. The body was so damaged that identification of
the body was impossible.

Police officials reasoned that the child had been abandoned in a dumpster at birth,
probably by the mother. Unable to determine the babys identity, the police decided to see
if there were any women who had been pregnant and now were not pregnant but did not
have a baby. The first step in this process was to identify all the women who have been
pregnant at the appropriate time in this same town of 10,000 residents. Police subpoenaed
the records of Planned Parenthood to obtain the names of women who had received
positive results on pregnancy tests in the previous nine months.

Planned Parenthood refused to comply with the subpoena, arguing that a womans
decision about her pregnancy is among the most private of matters. Those who came to
Planned Parenthood to determine whether they were pregnant ought to not be subjected,
nine months later, to police officers knocking on their doors and asking details about the
outcome of their pregnancy. They also point out that there is no guarantee that the woman
even got a pregnancy test or that she was a local resident, so the search of the records
could turn out to be futile.

Question: Should Planned Parenthood be forced to turn over to the police the records of
women who tested positive for pregnancy? Why or why not? What are the competing
considerations in this case? Why doe one outweigh the other?