Chapter 7 - Case: Should Kroger Pay Now for What Ralphs' Employee Did in the Past?

1. Assuming that the store and district managers of Ralphs received complaints about Misiolek’s
behavior starting in 1985, but that these complaints did not reach Ralphs’ headquarters in
Compton, do you believe that the judge is right in holding that the company as a whole should
not be held responsible for his actions? Should the company be held responsible for policies that
prevent complaints from reaching headquarters?
 The judge is not right that the company as a whole should not be held responsible for his
actions. Any company should be held responsible for their actions including Ralphs.
According to what I’ve learned, corporate organizations are morally responsible for their
actions and that their actions are moral or immoral in exactly the same sense that human
beings are. Hence, Ralphs are morally responsible for their actions assumed that the
complaints did not reach Ralphs’s headquarters in Compton or not. The company must be
held responsible for policies that prevent complaints from reaching headquarters. Ralphs’
management did not facilitate feedback, complaints from employee to headquarter.
Ralphs Grocery should be held responsible because their management did not facilitate
feedback, complaints from employee to headquarter. There was also no control
mechanism on Ralphs Grocery Co. The most important thing that should be underlined
is in April 1996 several women already complained to Ralph’s management but the
company did not take any disciplinary action towards Misiolek. Misiolek was not
removed from his position as store manager, but instead moved the complaining women
to other stores. The penalty should be compensatory and punitive damages. It would be
such a good idea based on compensatory justice principal.
 It is not right since there is discrimination and sexual harassment. Tight relationship
between ethics and business. It is important to meet the employees’ needs in the future
for business success. And the company should be held responsible as Ralphs did not
effectively facilitated the feedback and complaint. Moreover, Ralphs did not applied any
control mechanism or agency to discover the employees’ actions. Misiolek did not
received any punishment from the agency toward his actions but the Ralphs only remove
his position to the store manager and move the women to other store.
2. What kind of penalty do you believe would be appropriate for Ralphs? In your view, was the
initial $33.3 million penalty excessive? Explain. Was the final 2006 judgment fair? Explain.
 The penalty should be compensatory and punitive damages. It would be such a good idea
based on compensatory justice principal. In my point of view, it is actually depending on
how much the cost to rehabilitate the victims and how much the victims were aggrieved.
The $33.3 million penalty was excessive because the psychological impact for some
employees was not seriously same. Except for those who were grabbed, touched, patted,
hugged, touched their breasts which was way more offensive should be given much more
than rehabilitation cost penalty.
  The penalty appropriate for Ralphs should be compensatory and punitive damages. In my
opinion, the $33.3 million of penalty was not excessive because the effects of sexual
harassment may cause those six women psychologically and mentally. According to the
Sexual Harassment Support (2006), sexual harassment victims can suffer the same effect
as rape victims in a way that they suffer mentally and physically.
3. Should Kroger have to pay for events that happened before it took over the chain of
supermarkets?
 Ethically Kroger should not pay at all because the incident occurred before Kroger even
owned Ralphs but actually it depends on the acquisition contract between Kroger with
Fred Meyer and Fred Meyer with Ralphs. However, why would Kroger do not fire Roger
right after they acquired the company. They let Roger worked for 14 months. Therefore,
Kroger have to pay the fine. It is because Kroger itself has broke their policies of zero
tolerance policy for sexual harassment (1980).
 By law, Kroger has a responsibility for all the business activities that it owned. Kroger
now owned Ralphs, Kroger hold responsibility for its assets and liabilities in accordance
with condition or agreement made between the two parties.
 No. Considered as individual discrimination. Consists of the discriminatory act of one
individual who intentionally discriminates out of personal prejudice. Considered sexual
harassment. Unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance. Con - It
should be Roger Misiolek’s full responsibility for being punished for performing sex
harassment.
4. What can a company do to make sure that a situation like Misiolek’s does not occur? Why do
you think Ralphs allowed Misiolek to continue managing stores?
 A policy that should be exist are written with zero-tolerance policy prohibiting sexual
harassment, conduct some control mechanism by facilitating employee feedback, online
complain media, supervisory for manager. All complaints must be thoroughly
investigated and must have proper corrective actions. In order to prevent the occurrence
of similar scenarios in the future, there is dire need to formulate a clear-cut procedure for
dealing with these kinds of issues. Companies must also strictly adhere to the various
provisions of human rights and integrity of employees. Ralphs allowed Misiolek to
continue managing store because of his capability to achieve profits at the stores that he
manage and of achieving excellent bottom line figures at those stores.
 Ralphs should review its code of ethics and policies and harassment to make sure that
unfortunate case did not happen again. It should create good corporate governance and
stricter sexual harassment punishments. However, the only reason why they allowed him
to keep and let him continue his job was because of how well he was as a worker.
Because as they said, whichever store he was working that place were kept flourishing
and making excellent figures.
 1. Disciplinary action - Dianne Gober made a complaint to the senior vice president for
human resources. 2. Ralphs kept on protecting Roger Misiolek - They treasure his skills
in boosting profits at the stores he was in charged. 3. Ralphs should pay for the events. 4.
Compatible punishment on Roger Misiolek - The company might earn profits but this
unethical behaviour will damage firm’s creditability. 5. It happened when Roger Misiolek
was still an employee of Ralph - It has nothing to do with Kroger. 6. After Kroger’s took
over - Suspended Roger Misiolek - Roger quit the job.