CASE STUDY - MAGLEO CHRISTIAN C.

Case 1.2 The Ethics of Hardball: Toys “R” Us: Fair or Foul?
Employees of Toys “R” Us allegedly purchased $1.5 million worth of products from a lower-priced competitor, Child World,
which was offering free gift certificates with major purchases. Toys “R” Us resold the Child World products, purchased at
close to cost, for a profit and then used the $375,000 worth of Child World gift certificates to purchase additional products.
This practice is apparently legal.

Questions:

Should there be a law prohibiting this practice? Why may the law be inadequate to address this kind of competitive
behavior?

Should the law be the sole guide to deciding whether actions such as the above should be done? What else should the
managers of Toys “R” Us consider in their decision to employ this practice?

Did Child World get what it deserved? That is, did its own conduct invite this kind of retaliation by competing so
aggressively on price?

This practice do not prohibit any kind of law because it's just a matter of being business-
minded. Both company benefited because the Toy "R" Us maximized their profit because of
purchasing low-priced products from their competitor, "Child World". And the Child World also
benefited because many of their goods are sold. The law shouldn't be the sole guide to decide
whether actions should be done because it is the company's choice on what strategy they will
make to efficiently run their business and to gain a lot of profit. Child World get what it
deserved because the Toy "R" Us paid the right amount buying their goods. And because of
that, they will also gain profit.

Case 3.3 Lavish Pay at Harvard

Harvard University has an endowment fund of well-over $20 billion. Wall Street investment advisors are among the most
highly compensated professionals in the world. Harvard is a not-for-profit institution, but still needs top-notch investment
advisors on staff to handle a portfolio this large. In 2003, the top five managers at Harvard’s fund (University employees)
were paid over $107 million total, with the top manager’s annual compensation being approximately $35,000,000.00. The
compensation of the endowment fund managers dwarfed the compensation of the President and the University’s top
professors (the President earned $500,000.00). One alumnus went so far as to write in protest that “the amounts of money
being paid to these folks is by almost any measure obscene.” Angry threats were made to withhold further gifts to the
University. It was demonstrable that the talents of these managers, however, had increased the endowment by more $9
billion in ten years above what the average investment funds were earning. Harvard decided to outsource a large portion of
it investment managing and to cap the salaries of its in-house fund managers.

Questions:

Are top earning investment advisors really overpaid, or is the public perception distorted by highly publicized instances of a
few highly paid individuals?

How should pay be determined? Should pay at a not-for-profit institution be determined by the same factors that determine
the pay of other employees with similar responsibilities in the “for profit” world, and if so, what are those factors?

Are comparisons with the pay of investment advisors on Wall Street fair, or would it be better to use the salaries of other
top professionals at Harvard as a guide, or are there significant differences that ought to be considered?
What are some reasons that investment advisors, CEO’s, highly-talented sports and entertainment figures are so highly
paid? Are these reasons ethically valid? Are they economically valid?

No, the top-earning investment advisors not really overpaid because it is ordinary that they
have a huge salary for that certain job or position. The pay of salaries should be determined by
how professional the person is. So better not to compare the salary of ordinary employees to
those individuals who are professional. The comparison of salary between Wall Street and top
professionals at Harvard are fair because Wall Street is an outside institution advisor and is
known in the whole world in that certain field so it deserves a bigger salary. The reason why
investment advisors and CEO's are highly paid because they are highly-compensated
professionals that is quite rare. These reason/s are valid because they've worked for it.

Case 6.3 Plugging Leaks at H.P.

Hewlett-Packard has a policy, which asserts “we make privacy protection integral to our business operations.” In 2005,
extensive reports of confidential board meetings appeared in prominent newspapers. H.P. decided to hire investigators to
find out how the confidential information got to the newspapers. The investigators (not H.P. itself) made false
representations which enabled them to get copies of phone records for suspect board members and news reporters;
additionally, the investigators surveilled certain people. Eventually, the investigation became public knowledge and several
people resigned including the “leaker” (H.P.’s longest serving board member who claimed he had always spoken with
reporters and no one had ever objected before) and H.P.’s chairwoman, who had ordered the investigation, but claimed to
not know the tactics employed by the investigators. H.P.’s new CEO, Mark Hurd, stated, “... inappropriate investigative
tactics will not be employed again. They have no place at H.P.”

Questions:

On what grounds can an illegal investigation ever be justified?

Do you agree with the “slippery slope” argument that if we are trying to find who is responsible for a potentially illegal
situation, that we do not have to avoid using illegal means ourselves?

Should third parties such as the telephone companies be held liable for falling for the ruse used by unscrupulous
investigators? If so, will this affect our ability to act over the phone or by computer, rather than in person, and is such an
inconvenience balanced by the need to protect privacy?

The illegal ivestigation can be ever justified probably because certain things don't maych each
other. I do not agree because anyone should face the law even if how high is your position. It is
possible that the third parties like telephone companies can help trace the illegal doings
because it is an important matter, but when not important, it is prohibited by the law because
of violating the "Anti-Wiretapping Law".

Case 9.3 Johnson Controls, Inc.

In 1982, Johnson Controls, a manufacturer of lead batteries, adopted a fetal protection policy that excluded fertile women
from jobs that involved exposure to lead, which is known to harm a developing fetus. In 1984, a group of workers filed a
class action suit charging that the fetal protection policy was illegal sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act. Previously, the company had warned women about the dangers of lead and required them to sign a statement that
they understood the dangers, but these measures had not prevented eight women from becoming pregnant with
dangerously high levels of lead in their blood. OSHA recommended that women who planned to conceive maintain low
levels of lead in their blood, but the agency concluded that there was no reason to remove women from jobs involving lead
exposure.

Questions:

Is Johnson Control’s fetal protection policy well-formulated? Specifically, is the wording that excludes “women who are
capable of bearing children” too broad? Could this statement be made narrower without adverse consequences? (Note: if
the policy excluded women who were not sexually active or who were practicing adequate birth control, then the policy
might invade their privacy.)

Should the policy exclude women “whose inability to bear children is medically documented”? Could the failure to include
this exception be justified? Does including it coerce women into undergoing surgical sterilization?

What reasons led Johnson Controls to adopt the fetal protection policy? Are these legitimate reasons? What could be the
consequences if the company had failed to take some measures to protect women from lead exposure? (Note: the company
has an obligation not only to employees to provide a safe and healthy workplace but also to shareholders to protect the
company against legal liability.)

Is the fetal protection policy discriminatory? How could a lawyer for the plaintiffs argue in court?

Are there less discriminatory ways of addressing the problem? What other solutions might the company have adopted?
(Note: the courts generally hold that a practice is discriminatory if a less discriminatory alternative is available.)

Is the inability to become pregnant a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification?

Is the Supreme Court decision sound public policy? Is the legal prohibition against fetal protection policies acceptable from
the point of view of both employers and employees?

Yes, because the Johnson's Controls only considering the health of the mother and her
baby. The policy should exclude women who have inability to bear child because it can affect
her daily living because of lack of salary. The reason that led Johnson's Controls to adopt fetal
protection policy is to protect and to avoid their pregnant workers from exposing to chemicals
that can affect their health. The consequence that the company may face is that when their
employee are not properly protected, their company name will be affected and will face the
law. The fetal protection policy is not discriminating their pregnant workers because they are
only concern for the sake of them. There are less discriminatory ways that the company may
address like paying maternity leave. The inability to get pregnant is a Bona Fide Occupational
Qualification. For the employee it is acceptable, while on the part of the employer, it's not.
Because of quite lacking of employee when the policy is implemented.