CASE 1. Should Kroger Pay Now For What Ralphs’ Employee Did Then? Question 1: Assuming that the shop and territory directors of Ralphs received ailments about Misiolek’s behaviour get downing in 1985. but that these ailments did non make Ralph’s central office in Compton. do you believe that the justice is right in keeping that the company as a whole should non be held responsible for his actions? Should the company be held responsible for policies that prevent ailments from making central offices?

Ralphs Grocery Co. should be held responsible because Ralphs’ direction did non ease feedback. ailments from employee to headquarter. There was besides no control mechanism on Ralphs Grocery Co. The most of import thing that should be underlined is In April 1996 several adult females already complained to Ralph’s direction but the company did non take any action to train Misiolek. Misiolek was non removed from his place as shop director. but alternatively moved the kicking adult females to other shops.

Question 2: What sort of punishment do you believe would be appropriate for Ralphs? In your position. was the $ 33. 3 million punishment excessive? Explain.

The punishment should be compensatory and punitory amendss. It would be such a good thought based on compensatory justness principal. The $ 33. 3 million punishment is inordinate depending on how much the cost to rehabilitate the victims and how much the victims were aggrieved. I conclude that $ 33. 3 million punishment was inordinate because the psychological impact for some employees was non earnestly same with. Except for those who was grabbed. touched. patted. hugged. touched their chests which was manner more violative should be give much more than rehabilitation cost punishment. Question 3: Should Kroger hold to pay for events that happened before it took over the concatenation of supermarkets?

Ethically Kroger should non pay at all. But really it depends on the acquisition contract between Kroger with Fred Meyer and Fred Meyer with Ralphs. Question 4: Many provinces ( but non California ) adopt federal regulations that place a cap of $ 300. 000 on punitory amendss in torment instances. Is such a cap a good thought from an ethical point of position? Explain.

In consideration same with inquiry figure two. so it is non good thought for flattening penalty. It should run into the cost to rehabilitate the victims and how much the victims were aggrieved. Jail penalty should be considered.

Question 5: What can a company do to do certain that a state of affairs like Misiolek’s does non happen? Why do you believe Ralph’s allowed Misiolek to go on pull offing shops?

A policy that should be exist are written with zero-tolerance policy forbiding sexual torment. carry on some control mechanism by easing employee feedback. online complain media. supervisory for director. All ailments must exhaustively investigated. Ralphs allowed Misiolek to go on pull offing shop because of his capableness to accomplish net incomes at the shops that he pull off and of accomplishing first-class bottom line figures at those shops.

CASE 2. Wal-Mart’s Womans
Question 1: What fiscal impact do you believe the case could potentially hold on Wal-Mart?

If the jurisprudence suit was successful the company would hold to pay all the compensation sum which was around 86 million dollars to its full 1. 6 million female employees. Which in short would be a large blow to the company’s financials. and besides with the deteriorating image caused by the issue they might perchance lose out on an considerable sum of clients taking to farther fiscal deductions. It would besides ensue in higher monetary values in the shop because the company would seek to do up for all the loss incurred cause of the peculiar suit. Question 2: What are the major moral ailments of the females actioning Wal-Mart? Do you believe these moral ailments are justified? Why?

The major ailments launched by the adult females were that the company ( wal-mart ) discriminated against female employees in publicities pay. direction preparation and occupation assignments. The adult females stated that publicities in wal-mart were biased towards work forces. where work forces were promoted much faster and at a much frequent rate so adult females. They besides stated that there was a wage spread between work forces and adult females where two people of different gender on the same places were paid otherwise and adult females were frequently paid reasonably lower than the work forces. I think experience the ailments are valid.

If you are in a occupation and you see other coworkers acquiring hired whom are less qualified than you are so I think that the ailments are valid. If more than one ailment is being made about the company so an probe is warranted. The ailments are justified if you apply for a place or inquire about a place and the company doesn’t give you an chance but so turn around and engage a male whom is less qualified than you are. That’s ground to do a concrete determination and travel frontward. I would hold done the exact same thing. Question 3: What factors do you believe might account for the disagreements the Drogin study uncovered?

1 ) incorrect perceptual experience of higher degree employees towards females. 2 ) Subjective analysis of public presentation
3 ) Biased publicity policies
4 ) Lack of clearly stated publicity standards and pay construction. Question 4: What. if anything. make you believe Wal-Mart should make to rectify these disagreements? Should the company establish an “affirmative action” publicity plan for female employees? If so. what should this plan expression like?

To rectify the above issues wal-mart should seek and put an monitoring system which would supervise the publicity process and the ratio in which male and female employees are promoted. attempt and stipulate the publicity standards and pay constructions and do it’s even for all employees irrespective of their gender so as to avoid state of affairss like this in the hereafter. Rigorous action and steps should be taken against people promoting gender favoritism in the company i. e the directors as stated in the instance. Question 5: Do you believe the adult females deserve to win their case?