The Ethical Selection Dilemma at Integrity Motors Background

The Ethical Selection Dilemma at Integrity Motors

Background

Integrity Motors has been retailing quality used cars and trucks for the past ten years. It is located in a large mid western city, and has become the largest and most successful used car dealership in the region. Integrity Motors employs 11 full-time sales persons. Timmy Black-burn, the owner, wants to maintain a policy of having a lean, yet highly productive staff, which means that the employees have to be dependable, highly competent, and willing towork at a high level of productivity for long hours each day.

After ten years at Integrity Motors, the sales manager was resigning to start his own business. Blackburn felt he needed the same type of employee he had had in the position—someone who had considerable experience as a sales manager, was a good motivator, had good communication and management skills, was creative, and who would be committed to the dealership for many years. Although Blackburn felt it prudent to take the necessary time to carefully select a new sales manager, time was of the essence because the end of the year was approaching and the inventory needed to be drastically reduced.

Applications for the job started pouring in almost immediately. After a week, 45 applicants had expressed interest in the job, of which ten potentially suitable candidates were invited for interviews. A panel comprised of the office manager, Helen Smith; the service manager, Joe Washington; and Timmy Blackburn interviewed the ten applicants. Based on theinterviews, it was clear that one candidate, Gladys Morrison, was outstanding compared to all other applicants. Morrison had recently moved to the area from a metropolitan city where she was a sales manager for 15 years. Everyone agreed that she was the perfect candidate. The next morning an offer would be extended to Morrison. Everyone left the meeting feeling satisfied that they had made an excellent choice.

A New Development

The next morning when Blackburn arrived at the dealership he was met by Smith and Washington, who seemed troubled. Apparently, after the meeting the prior evening, Smith happened to meet an old friend at a convenience store. The friend told Smith she was four months pregnant and that, coincidentally, her new neighbor was also four months pregnant.To Smith’s surprise, the pregnant neighbor was Gladys Morrison, the person to whom the dealership would extend a job offer the next morning. Smith said nothing to her friend about Morrison’s employment inquiry or pending job offer, yet throughout the night, Smith pondered about the potential hire.

The next morning, as Smith shared this development with Blackburn and Washington before Gladys Morrison was contacted, all three discussed the potential consequences of hiring Morrison. Washington was astounded that Morrison had not informed them of her pregnancy. Blackburn quickly told him that legally she did not have to tell them, and furthermore,any employment decision could not be based on her pregnancy. Smith observed that though legally this was true, from a practical standpoint the dealership could not afford to be without a sales manager for an extended period of time. Blackburn, too, was concerned about her potential absence as well as her potential inability to work for long periods under intense pressure, especially when they needed to reduce inventory. Smith also reminded them that although Morrison was clearly the best applicant, there were at least nine other applicants who would be suitable sales managers.

Questions 1.

What are the legal and ethical issues involved in this case? Was it ethical for GladysMorrison to have applied for the position in the first place?

2. Should the owner hire Morrison or some other applicant? Should the information aboutthe pregnancy be considered?

3. If Morrison is hired, how could Integrity Motors accommodate her pregnancy?

Solution

1. The current law in USA does not require a pregnant job applicant or a pregnant job seeker to disclose the information regarding her pregnancy to the prospective employers. So there is no legal issue from the employee\'s point of view. From the employer\'s point of view, an employer cannot legally discriminate against a woman for being pregnant and once an offer is extended. In this case the offer was not extended so there is no legal case from the employer\'s point of view as well.

Ethically, Morrison should have disclosed the information about her pregnancy to her prospective employers. She is wrong on ethical grounds by not disclosing this information.

2. The owner here is free to consider his requirement. Here his concern is that the position will be vacant for sometime when Morrison goes on maternity leave, if she is hired. So her hiring will not result in a desirable situation for the owner and Integrity Motors. So, the information about the pregnancy can be considered and the owner should hire some other applicant as the work requirement is not suitable for a pregnant woman considering the work pressure of reducing inventory.

3. If Morrison is hired, Integrity Motors will have to accomodate her pregnancy and will have to give Morrison all the rights that is due to her by law i.e maternity leave etc. Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) covers the pregnancy accomodation rights. The owner of the Integrity Motors has to know all the provisions in the PDA. Integrity Motors could have flexible arrival time, reserved parking, providing a less physically demanding shift, and do policy modifications as and when required.