Jane’s Decision

Case Study: Jane’s Decision

Celina M Frederick

Coppin State University

Case Study: Jane’s Decision

The main issues apparent in this case are the unethical behaviors of Eddie, the general manager, giving Greg, a general employee, special work accommodations compared to his like coworkers, Eddie’s illegal behavior of threatening Jane with termination if she reported his activities, and the ethical decision of whether Jane should report the unethical practices of her boss. Some underlying issues include the relationships all parties have with one another which could cause a conflict of interest or give probable cause for suspicion of discrimination. This includes Eddie and Greg’s relationship as brothers and Eddie, Gregg, and Brad’s (the owner of the firm) relationship as coworkers and friends.

It was stated in the case that protocol for work distribution is, employees are to take their service tickets from the top of the stack, complete the ticket, and repeat. Eddie handpicked easier and more profitable tickets specifically for Greg which is showing bias and breaking protocol. Assuming the process for work distribution was inscribed somewhere in an employee conduct guide of some kind, it would be considered a binding contract that Eddie and the company are meant to follow. Showing bias with the distribution of work assignments is a violation of company policy which Jane and other employees could sue for as a breach of contract. When Jane witnesses Eddie and Greg’s actions, Eddie threatens Jane that he will fire her if she exposes them. This is harassment and illegal retaliation. As an employed individual, Jane has rights which include protection from reprimand for filing a harassment or discrimination claim. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) says “It is unlawful to retaliate against applicants or employees for filing or being a witness in an EEOC charge, complaint, investigation, or lawsuit, communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment, and refusing to follow orders that would result in discrimination.” By Eddie threatening to fire Jane for reporting discriminatory activity, he displayed clear retaliation against a lawfully protected activity which is illegal and an unethical scare tactic to discourage Jane from reporting her findings. On top of all these infractions, it is revealed in the case that Eddie and Greg are brothers, the most impactful bias in the case. Lastly, there’s Jane’s dilemma of whether she should report her boss’ actions or not. Exposing Eddie is the ethical decision, but Jane must consider what impact that decision would have on her life vs. if she just decides to keep quiet. After all, Jane has just graduated college and is blessed enough to have a stable job as the Head of the Payroll Dept. Is reporting the discrimination she uncovered worth losing her job and financial security? Aside from the main problems in this case, the underlying factors of Greg, Eddie, and Brad’s relationships with each other give cause for concern because they give opportunity for discrimination and bias to occur and/or help provide circumstantial evidence to prove discrimination and bias has happened. As stated above, Eddie and Greg are brothers. This relationship alone is a breeding ground for discrimination and bias. Then, it says in the case that Jane has seen the three-gentleman having lunch together “frequently”. Assuming this implies that the three are friends, at the least that they are fond of each other’s company, this would make reporting a discrimination claim against Eddie and Greg much more complicated seeing as Brad is more likely to believe and protect his friends over a new hire that has no sentimental meaning to him. This also means that Jane could be more likely to get fired, at the least treated negatively, if she goes through with reporting her claim. However, there is also a possibility that Brad doesn’t know about and doesn’t condone Eddie and Greg’s deceptive behavior. Friends or not, business is business. As the owner of the firm, Brad knows the consequences that could follow if he and his business were implicated in a discrimination scandal. Lawsuits, negative publicity, loss of clients, and decreased profits are among those consequences; all of which Brad would want to avoid so it would be in his best interest to effectively, transparently, and quickly address Jane’s claims. Also, if everything works in Jane’s favor, reporting her discovery could increase her favor with Brad because he appreciated her honesty and her commitment to ensuring his business was running in an ethical manner. I believe that Jane should, first, report her findings to Brad and based off that conversation and the actions that follow, she could either accept the way the situation was handled or file a complaint with an external body like the EEO. I say that Jane should report her findings because Jane has a valid case for discrimination, by reporting her claims Jane would be in compliance with the law and not at risk of being implicated in the crime with Eddie and Greg, and, in the case that Jane gets fired, her honest behavior and display of good morals would make her more likely to get a new job. Jane has, undeniably, uncovered a blatant case of discrimination and illegal retaliation. I can’t say if she has enough of or the right kind of evidence, but I believe there is enough probable cause and circumstantial evidence to justify Jane’s claims. Making a formal complaint will also be a big factor in how the situation gets dealt with and will look favorable for Jane in the case of a lawsuit. In the world of business, money management and financial reporting positions are held in high regard. When it comes to handling money, there is a lot of opportunity for fraudulent behavior. Knowing this, when companies hire for these positions, they are interested in technical capabilities as well as trustworthiness and good character. In the case that Jane gets fired for speaking up, she would be a prime candidate for a lot of other companies because she displayed integrity and good character. The opposition would argue that Jane shouldn’t report her discovery because Jane could lose her job, resulting in a loss of income and job security which is not an ideal circumstance for someone who has just graduated college. Assuming Jane is like most college graduates, she has bills to pay. Housing, car note, and a large sum of student loans. Losing her job could put her at risk of not being able to take care of her expenses. Also, there’s no guarantee she will find another job immediately after being let go which can put Jane’s life and finances in a very unstable state. However, if Jane doesn’t report her findings she would be considered a coconspirator with Eddie and Greg. If she gets caught it could ruin her future career opportunities and get her into legal trouble. Because Jane knows about and has witnessed Eddie and Greg’s activities and knows that they plan on continuing said activities, Jane has a legal obligation to make her findings known to a higher authority. If she doesn’t and they get busted, Jane’s silence could be aiding and abetting and she could be criminally charged as “accessory after the fact”. Aside from now having a record, Jane could also ruin her future career opportunities because she has demonstrated bad character and bad judgement. In a financial setting or institution, trust is everything.  Jane’s unwillingness to report the illegal activities she discovered will show that she cannot be trusted which will haunt her for the rest of her professional career. What kind of employer wants an untrustworthy employee?