Ethics in the Workplace: Summary and Analysis of Bodaghi v. Department of Natural Resources

Ethics in the Workplace

In this assignment, you are to summarize the law and facts involved in a published legal opinion. Then, from the perspective of two different ethical models, you will analyze whether either party acted ethically. Finally, you will evaluate the extent to which the parties’ dispute could have been diffused or resolved had Regis/Jesuit core values been applied.

Regis Jesuit core values: https://www.regis.edu/About-Regis-University/JesuitEducated/Key-Jesuit-Values.aspx 

Study the case to identify the legal principle at issue, the salient facts of the case, and the court’s ruling.

Next, study the ethical theories assigned for this week Egalitarianism and Libertarianism, as well as the Regis Jesuit values. 

The paper will have two parts:  A Brief, which summarizes the law and facts at issue, and an Analysis, where you will analyze the dispute from two ethical perspectives and, then, evaluate how the use of Regis/Jesuit values would have affected the parties’ dispute.

• The Brief outlining the facts and law of this case (1-2 pages; single spaced)

• The Analysis  compose an analysis addressing the following questions (3 pages; double spaced):

o From the Egalitarian perspective, was either party ethical? Why? Why not? Cite facts from the case and key elements of Egalitarianism to support your conclusion.

o From the Libertarian perspective, was either party ethical? Why? Why not? Cite facts from the case and key elements of Libertarianism to support your conclusion.

o Applying two of the six core Jesuit values, how might the use of those principles have diffused or resolved the parties’ dispute? Cite practical examples of how the Jesuit values could have been applied.

Lead the reader through your thought process.  Don’t simply state a conclusion.

• Describe the ethical theory you are using.

• Analyze the facts of the case (what the parties did) under that theory. 

• What is your conclusion?  Per the theory did either party act ethically?  Why?  Why not?

• Repeat the above three steps using the second ethical theory assigned.

Finally, which Jesuit values could have been adopted by either party to diffuse or avoid the trip to court? 

The Analysis is the most important part of the paper; it must be a thorough, substantive discussion of the ethical issues presented by the case. A few paragraphs likely will NOT satisfy the requirement. 

Always begin with a definition of the key elements of the theory; pretend the reader has not had the benefit of reading the assigned material.  Then, analyze the business situation presented from the perspective of the ethical theories covered in the readings assigned for the class when the Analysis is due. 

For example, can one party’s actions be determined ethical or not under the Utilitarian theory? The Utilitarian analysis has three distinct elements:  the units considered, the cost/benefit of the choices available, and the "end point the point in time when you calculate the costs/benefits.

Units: The Utilitarian is trying to find the solution to a dilemma which will bring "the greatest (good/happiness) the greatest number (of units)."  So, whose happiness should be counted/considered?  Lorenz?  His managers? MM stockholders?  MM employees? NASA employees?  The American taxpayer?  The whole world?  You need to identify who should be considered and explain why.

Cost/benefit: Essentially the dilemma at hand is whether to do more testing or not.  What are the benefits/costs of each option?  A benefit of testing is (perhaps) producing a better product.  A cost would be more money and perhaps missing the due date.  Moreover, a cost/benefit analysis can be a challenge because some things are difficult to quantify (e.g., reputation, human life).  Yet, that's exactly what managers / leaders (you!) have to do - make the difficult decisions.

End point: When is it that you are calculating benefits and costs?  In the short term (the due date of the product)?  In the long term (5 years down the road)?  Why at that point in time?

Turning, then, to the Kantian theory which party was ethical?  Which was not?  Why?  Keep in mind that the Kantian theory is not as easy or simplistic as it appears.  For example, you will have to address the dilemma of conflicting duties:  Lorenz had a duty of honesty to his client.  He had a duty of loyalty to his employer.  Which duty is the most important?  Why?

Finally, identify, describe and discuss two Jesuit values that could have diffused or resolved the workplace dilemmas presented in this case.