Fred, a 17-year employee with Sam's Sauna, was fired for poor job performance and poor attendance, after accruing five disciplinary penalties within a 12-month period under the company's progressive disciplinary policy. A week later, Fred told his former supervisor that he had a substance abuse problem.
Although there was no employee assistance program in place and the company had not been aware of Fred's condition, their personnel director assisted Fred in obtaining treatment by allowing him to continue receiving insurance benefits and approved his unemployment insurance claim.
Fred subsequently requested reinstatement, maintaining that he had been rehabilitated since his discharge and was fully capable of being a productive employee. He pointed to a letter written by his treatment counselor, which said that his prognosis for leading a "clean, sober lifestyle" was a big incentive for him. Fred pleaded for another chance, arguing that his past problems resulted from drug addiction and that Sam's Saunas should have recognized and provided treatment for the problem.
Sam's Saunas countered that Fred should have notified his supervisor of his drug problem, and that everything possible had been done to help him receive treatment. Moreover, the company stressed that the employee had been fired for poor performance and absenteeism. Use of the progressive discipline policy had been necessary because the employee had committed a string of offenses over the course of a year, including careless workmanship, distracting others, wasting time, and disregarding safety rules.
Questions:
Please use business ethics theories to discuss your arguments!
Answer= Yes, as per ADA, substance abuse is identified as the disability and thus the employer need to provide all the accommodation if the employee has all the evidence that he has successfully recovered from the addiction, Thus Fred must be reinstated
Answer = Yes, the conduct of the company was quite fair in helping the employee to deal with the problem of addiction as the company allowed Fred to continue receiving insurance benefits and approved his unemployment insurance claim.
Answer= No, As Freed was suffering from the substance abuse he should have been given more chance to accommodate in the organization as per the guidelines of ADA. At the same time, the personnel manager must also have the morality t help someone come out of the addiction by facilitating him more chances
Answer= As Fred did not notify the supervisor for his addiction problem, it was his fault that he did not take the right initiatives that can protect him from the disciplinary actions
Answer= If we look at the ethical viewpoint, all the employees must be treated similarly without any discrimination. If Fred is given more chance than the other employees may feel as discriminated especially when Fred did not communicate his issue of addiction
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 1 hours.