ALL WORK MUST BE ORIGINAL AND NOT PLAGIARIZEDORIGINAL
the case study “Employee Rights Case Study” located in the unit Reading.
Would firing Allen Lopez violate his civil rights? Explain why or why not
using ethical reasoning and theory.
In addition to your posted answer, be sure to comment
on at least two of your classmates’ post and participate regularly. Responses
to others can come in many forms and can include the following:
to the ideas or details of someone else’s responses.Taking
a concept from the reading and applying it to life, to the reading itself,
to your work, or to the questions you’re asked to answer. Helping
a peer understand a concept from the reading. Sharing
a story from work or your community that illustrates the reading. Asking
questions on points you need help understanding. Explaining
why you answered a question in a specific way.Pointing
out how different answers took the question in different directions/noting
a pattern/suggesting an explanation. Developing
theories to explain patterns you see in the reading.Summarizing
aspects of the assigned reading and asking for help from your peers in
figuring out how you would apply this concept in a real world situation.
Rights Case Study For seven years, Allen Lopez had worked for ExtremeNet, a
well-known, global, high-technology company that provides clients with Internet
services such as e-commerce and Web development, online marketing, strategic
planning, and research. Allen was well paid and performed well in a responsible
middle-management position, which he found rewarding. However, as ExtremeNet
struggled to manage the effects of an economic downturn, Allen became
disenchanted with the company’s treatment of lower-level employees, including
his own assistant. Among Allen’s concerns were gender and age discrimination
during layoffs, as well as changes to personnel policies that he believed
treated lower-level employees unfairly.
Allen’s frustrations grew after he raised his concerns
in vain with his superiors. What he did next put his career in jeopardy:
Working at home over several weekends, Allen created and published on the
Internet a satiric website that inveighed against the abusive management
practices of a fictional company that bore a striking resemblance to
ExtremeNet. The site gained some notoriety among high- tech websites and in the
The vice presidents of ExtremeNet were incensed to
learn of the site’s existence and were concerned that the site generated so
much traffic and publicity. Although Allen protested that he acted out of a
sense of justice and asserted that his creative work was protected by his first
amendment rights, this did not prevent the leadership team of ExtremeNet from
hastily assembling an emergency meeting to decide whether Allen Lopez should be
discharged, and whether ExtremeNet should file suit to have his satirical
website removed from the World Wide Web.
Allen began his campaign against unfair treatment of lower-level employees on
the right track. He followed his own moral standard and attempted to
approach upper-level management to voice his displeasure with the treatment of
those employees; nonetheless his efforts were ineffective.
As we read the case study we either have to make
certain assumptions about the policies and procedures in which the company
operated or make assumptions about the policies and procedures Allen violated
by creating the website.
The website Allen created was satiric or
mocking. It was meant to bring light to immoral acts by the company and
to what seemed like, force them to acknowledge their wrong-doings and correct
them. If Allen signed certain policy and procedure agreements as an employee he
may have been the one in violation and his rights were not violated, as he
agreed to the terms of the policy and procedures are part of his
Allen’s campaign was clearly Act Utilitarian (Thiroux,
2014). He acted on what he thought was the best course to bring about
the best consequences for everyone affected. There would have been a lie,
in this case, that would be the policy and procedure he may have signed to not
slander the company, not use his skills outside of company work, or whatever
the policy may have been. This lie, in his mind, was the best action that
could have been taken to initiate a better course of action from the company.
Thiroux, Jacques P., Keith Krasemann. Ethics: Theory
and Practice (Updated Edition), 11th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions,
2014-12-01. VitalBook file.
Firing Allen Lopez would indeed violate his civil
rights. “A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if
interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury” (Wex, 2016)
Allen, as an employee, has a right to bring forth information regarding
discrimination in his work environment. He states that he is well within his
rights of the 1st amendment, but, technically, this is incorrect.
Allen’s right to freedom of speech can only be justified if his speech is in
relation to public concern. (Workplace fairness, 2016) Since Allen’s expression
of speech was done about a personal matter within the workplace he cannot claim
rights under the 1st amendment. However, in my opinion, Extreme Net
has no legal right to fire Allen. Allen did not indicate in his website, his
employers directly, therefore there is no proof of wrong doing. Slander cannot
even be claimed, unless Allen’s writings were untrue of his employer. Firing
Allen Lopez would be considered a form of retaliation for him coming forth with
problems in his work environment. Employees who come forth with wrong doings of
a work place have the right to be protected from retaliation in any form from
(P.S. All this business talk was a bit hard to follow
so if I am incorrect in any point I made please feel free to correct me. Thank
Legal Information Institute, (2016) Civil rights.
Retrieved from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights
NOLO, (2016). Workplace Retaliation: What Are Your
Rights? Retrieved from:
Workplace Fairness (2016) Retaliation — Public
Employees and First Amendment Rights. Retrieved from: https://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-public-employees
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more