Case Study 2 BMGT 203-C050 Kyle Cheuvront

Key Facts
A Germanwings plane operated by the airline Lufthansa crashed in April of 2015, and the
pilot, Andreas Lubitz, was found to have intentionally crashed the plane into the French Alps
(Memmott 1). The airline could now face unlimited liability for disaster even though had no
knowledge of the pilots mental health.
Pilots in the US are mental and physically tested by a Federal Aviation Association
approved doctor at least once a year (Noguchi 1). These pilots may also undergo fitness for duty
tests.
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employer discrimination against anyone
with a disability or mental health problem. Employers are allowed to require for medical
examinations to take place, but only when it is Job Related and consistent with business
necessity (Noguchi 1).
Public safety employers can require mental examinations to take place, but it must be
done for every employee in that particular job. This includes airlines, along with law
enforcement and the trucking industry (Noguchi 1).
There is no accurate way to test for suicide or even mental health issues. A Harvard study
shows that mental health professionals perform no better than chance when it comes to
predicting which patients will attempt suicide (Hamilton 1).
Employers now worry that due to the recent negative attention to the pilots mental
health issues, employees with mental health issues wont come forward in fear of losing their job
(Noguchi 2). Along with that problem, employers cannot successfully tell when someone is just

depressed, or a danger to society. This highlights the fact that there is no clear cut guide to
determining whether an employer should know of an employees mental health history, or even
has the right to know.
Ethical Issues Involved
I think that there are many ethical issues involved with this case. The first that comes to
mind is the withholding, or lack of information done by the Germanwings. This is a very
subjective issue because Germanwings could likely be criticized for discrimination if they were
to test certain pilots, so it is likely this did not happen. Since they had no knowledge of the
mental health issue, it is almost impossible to determine if they took the right course of action.
The next ethical issue involved in this case is discrimination. The large problem with
mental health screening is that people who do suffer from these problems and are not a danger to
anyone will feel highly discriminated against, and it can cause a public outrage. This causes a
risk for the company, but there is also risk in not having any screening, and that is seen in the
plane crash. When discrimination is said to have occurred, the rights of the one discriminated
against will often win the argument.
A big ethical issue in this case is privacy rights of an employee regarding their employer.
An employee is not required to disclose their medical history during the hiring process, and only
certain circumstances allow for an employer to receive this information. Some jobs in the
government and involved with the safety of the public require this information, but it cannot be
totally enforced. The employees also do not want to release their medical history, but in some
cases it may help the safety of the public.

Mental health is the final and maybe most important ethical issue in this case. Mental
health itself is not the issue, but how it is dealt with in the labor force. Mental health issues
cannot be openly addressed at times due to discrimination, and often are unrecognizable. There
are not an outstanding group of outlets for these people, so the issues usually go on without
anyone knowing. Germanwings clearly did not know of the problems, but maybe they did not
allow for any professional mental health help.
Stakeholders Affected and How They View This Situation
1. The German Airline who employed this pilot have came out and said that they believe
he committed suicide when he took the plane down. They feel that in the future they
should be actively checking the mental history of their pilots, and do not feel that they
are in the wrong for the crash, for this issue is a difficult subject. They hope to not
have to take unlimited liability for the tragedy and will take much greater safety
precautions.
2. The Families of the victims of the place crash are clearly devastated and feel they are
owed something for what they are going through. Since we may never know what
actually happened, these families will most likely all blame the Airline for the
disaster. I believe they will face unlimited liability in this case even though it is a
controversial case.
3. Airlines across the world will now likely have a system in place when this case gets
resolved. Since there is no cross cultural guidelines on how to evaluate a pilots mental
health and ability to do their job, this crash will allow for action to be taken. The
airlines likely will agree with this, given that discrimination laws make it difficult to
complete these tests.

4. Employees who suffer from or have a mental health history also have a large stake in
this case. They feel that their history could have an impact on their current
employment, and want to keep their history private. They believe that it is their right
to have that part of their lives separate from their employers, and thus again we come
to this controversy.
5. Employees without mental health issues will be subjected to the same implications
made by any decision in this case, so they will also want their information to remain
private. Some may be open for whatever keeps everyone safe, but it will depend on
the circumstances of the job.
Alternate Solutions
1. One possible solution to this problem is to make it mandatory for medical history
regarding mental health be required in any job that interacts with other people. This
would give employers the right to have this information and also allow them to
complete mental health tests on anyone they feel needs it. This solution could protect
from the possibility of a disaster happening again.
2. Another possible solution is to not allow for any medical history be required, and let
the privacy rights of the employee remain supreme. This would make sure that no
employee is discriminated against but limit the scope of employers rights. The
consequence of a solution like this is the possibility of a disaster like this happening
again.
Implications of These Alternatives
Solution 1

1. Utilitarianism: A utilitarian perspective evaluates an action simply by its

consequences on the greater group of people (Houston 1). This solution may have
some individuals feel they are losing privacy rights, but the lives of people that could
be potentially saved far outweigh the possibility of a few people being upset. This
solution goes directly in line with a utilitarian perspective.
2. Deontological: A deontological approach takes into account aspects of the action
itself, like whether it adheres to certain rules (Houston 1). For example, it is not right
to kill, even if killing could save the lives of many. In this case, even though requiring
medical history could be helpful in identifying potential problems, it does violate the
rights of an individual, so it would not be a valid solution.
3. Virtue Ethics: This solution shows personal integrity and character from all
companies to ensure that their employees are fit for their job and are not a danger to
the people around them. This integrity over rules the fact that some employees will
not want to release their history or be evaluated.
Solution #2
1. Utilitarian: This solution would not go be for the greater good of the people. Although
a select group of individuals will agree that they want to keep their medical history,
people with actual issues can slip through and threaten public safety.
2. Deontological: This solution adheres to all rules and rights of individuals involved.
As of right now, an employee has a right to keep their history private, and this
solution does not violate that. Employers will not agree with this, but they also must
follow all rules and regulations.
3. Virtue Ethics: This solution does not allow for the employer to be confident with their
personal integrity. They may know there is a problem an employee, but will not be
able to do anything about it.

Final Solution
I completely agree with the first alternative solution and think it is the only way to
completely guarantee public safety. Although it is very difficult to actually determine who is at
risk, companies should be allowed to screen or test their employees. If someone does take a
negative action and that employer knew and did nothing, they would be liable. This solution
gives Employers as much information as possible so they can determine who is safe to work, to
the best of their ability.

Works Cited
Hamilton, Jon. "No Easy, Reliable Way To Screen For Suicide." NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2016.

Hutson, Matthew. "Our Inconsistent Ethical Instincts." The New York Times. The New York Times, 30
Mar. 2013. Web. 06 Apr. 2016.
Memmott, Mark. "Germanwings Crash: 'Suicide' Doesn't See m To Tell The Story." NPR. NPR, n.d.
Web. 06 Apr. 2016.
Noguchi, Yuki. "Germanwings Crash Highlights Workplace Approaches To Mental Health." NPR.
NPR, 01 Apr. 2015. Web. 06 Apr. 2016