Phung Nguyen
PHIL 305
Saturdays 8:00 – 10:45 AM
Case A:
It looks like a legal firing. Ron was not under protected class. He did not file a worker’s
compensation claim, or he did not report unlawful discrimination or harassment. Ron also did not
refuse to commit fraudulent business practices. That is why it can be a legal firing in California.
However, if Ron was a protected employee and he was a good employee, he might be able to win
for a wrongful discharge suit.
The firing is not an ethical firing. Appling the utilitarian theory, The Ron’s action of
reporting his supervisor is the right thing to do. The whole company benefits from his report
while only one person – Dan is harmed by being firing. If Ron did not report Dan, what would
happen? Probably, Dan will not stop his action and may be steal bigger and bigger. The company
did not fire him with a good faith.
Case B:
This case looks like a legal firing in California. Cristi was not a protected employee. She
did not have any medical concerns. She did not have AIDS or HIV. In addition, she was not over
40 years old to be classified as protected employee of age. That’s why her firing seems legal.
However, if she was a protected employee and she did well on her job, she may win if she sue
the high school for wrongful discharge.
The case is not an ethical firing. Cristi did not violate universal rules. Cristi was telling
the truth of becoming a Spanish teacher on the online video. She did not lie to anyone. She did
not try to cover up herself. She knew that she would be a teacher, but she disclosed that
information online. The school cannot consider her previous job to decide on firing her unless
her previous job was illegal job. Unless, her knowledge and skills made her not a good Spanish
teacher, the school fires her without good reason.
1
Case D:
It does not look like a legal firing in California. Jake did not conduct any illegal acts. He
worn a supremacist tee shirt and anti-immigration cap on Sunday can be the expression of his
thoughts, but the reason also can be his interest on the clothes’ design, color, and so on. That
Sunday was not his workday. How he wears on his day off cannot be a reason to fire him
because it does not affect Target – his workplace. Nobody knows he works at Target in the
public park. It is his rights to wear whatever he wants outside his workplace. The company fired
without a good reason or good faith. Thus, it is an illegal firing. Jake may fall under protected
class of voting, and he probably wins the case.
This case is not an ethical firing because it violates the human rights. Human has right of
free speech no matter if the speech is ethical or not. Human has right over their own body, so
they can put on anything they like. In the case, the upper manager should not fire Jake, but
indicating that the company values ethical minds. He also can educate the employees and create
rewards and punishments on ethical and ethical behaviors. However, he need to make sure the
employees do not do anything that is unethical affecting the company.
Case E:
It looks like a legal firing in California. Gina was not under protected class. She was not
over 40 years old. She did not have pregnancy. She did not have change of marital status since
working at Hooters. If Gina was under protected class and her working performance stayed the
same after she had the breast reduction operation, Gina could be able to win the case for a
wrongful discharge. In this case, Gina’s working performance has declined after her operation.
Gina should have understood that her breast size is the important key to work at Hooter. Her
changes on her breast affected Hooters in overall.
This case is not an ethical firing. What a good manager should have done is asking her
about the reason that Gina underwent breast reduction operation, showing her working
performance has declined, and letting her know that she was not in demand like other servers.
Also, the manager should express his/her concern on Gina’s tips/income if she continues
working at Hooters as a server. A good manager will also consider Gina in another position with
Hooters that may be better fit for her.
2
Case F:
It looks like a legal firing in California. Isabella was not under protected class. She did
not get fired because she had bad medical condition. Obviously, she did not report a safety
violation to a regulatory agency or report unlawful discrimination or harassment. If Isabella was
under the protected class and she did not violate any workplace’s policy, she might be able to sue
for a wrongful discharge suit.
However, it seems like an unethical firing. Human has rights on smoking. The fact that
she was smoking in her car in her break time indicated Isabella did not violate the company’s
policy. The company did not permit smoking in the office building, but not in the parking lot.
The company did not require its employees to not smoking because other employees smoked
around the back door. The owner should not fire Isabella because it is not a firing with good
cause. Instead, the owner should have let her know that she should not smoke in the place that
people can see her easily because it may affect the company’s reputation.
3