Wagner 1

Jeanine Wagner

Dr. William Abshire

PHIL-320E-02

14 December 2017

Evaluation of “Managing the Crisis at Mitsubishi Motors”

View the important facts:

In the “Managing the Crisis at Mitsubishi Motors” case, there is clear misconduct by the

employees of the automobile plant, and inaction by the human resources department in dealing

with the situation appropriately. The Japanese-owned automobile plant employs 3000 people,

25% of which are females. The company has been accused of hundreds of cases in which they

allowed the sexual harassment of their female employees by the male employees. The

harassment included physically grabbing women in the breasts, buttocks, and genitalia;

intimidation of the women by addressing them as “bitch” and “whore;” and threatening the

women with losing their job unless they allowed the male’s sexual advances (Beauchamp, 25).

The women and others at the plant have attempted to report the issues, but nothing has come of

their complaints. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) director of the

Chicago office, John Rowe, has cited quid pro quo and hostile environment infractions against

the plant. Many people of power within the company knew of the offenses, but did nothing to

address the situation. Some even blamed Japanese culture of degrading women coworkers as the

reason for their actions.

The Vice President for Mitsubishi Motors, Gary Shultz and the procurement branch

manager, Sheila Randolph organized a rally outside of the EEOC office in Chicago. They would

pay the employees for their time if they went and rallied against the outrageous allegations.

Those who chose not to attend were required to come to work and explain why they did not
 Wagner 2

attend. Many employees, both men and women, undermined the plaintiff’s allegations and

excused the behavior of their male coworkers claiming the actions were not meant to be harmful.

The Mitsubishi plant managers decided to cooperate with the investigation and even

attempted to correct their previous actions. They initiated training programs for sexual

harassment awareness, reviewed and modified existing policies, hired someone to investigate

race and sexual discrimination complaints, and increased the number of Mitsubishi car

dealerships owned by women and minorities. In addition, the settlement of the case with the

EEOC further promoted change within the company. They were required to hire new employees

to have strong leadership in their human resources department, increase the salaries for managers

who handle sexual harassment charges, and establish an outside panel that regularly assesses the

plant’s progress towards minimizing sexual harassment in the workplace.

Ask questions of the information or data:

In this case, it is important to ask what the code of ethics for human resource managers is

regarding their action for a discrimination case? This information can be found on the website

for the Society for Human Resources Management. It states that human resource personnel have

the professional responsibility to “advocate for the appropriate use of and appreciation of human

beings as employees” (Society for Human Resource Management). In addition, they are to “act

ethically in every professional interaction” and “champion the development of others as ethical

leaders in the profession and in organizations” (Society for Human Resource Management).

Under the fairness and justice heading these employees are called to “treat people with dignity,

respect, and compassion to foster a trusting work environment free of harassment, intimidation,

and unlawful discrimination” (Society for Human Resource Management). Human resource

managers are not only responsible for their own ethical actions, but also for encouraging ethical

decisions for every employee.

 Wagner 3

Is the degradation of women, common in Japanese culture? This question was harder to

answer, specifically regarding what is deemed acceptable in Japanese work environments. While

almost every culture has ways in which women are degraded, such as prostitutes and strip clubs,

there are not many that believe this type of behavior is appropriate for the workplace.

How does the EEOC enforce discrimination laws? What policies do they have to check up

on companies they have previously accused of breaking discrimination laws? According to the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), they can enforce discrimination laws by

investigating allegations of discrimination within the private sector and continue with litigation

as necessary (Administrative Enforcement and Litigation). It is unclear whether the EEOC has

plans in place to check up on employers who have been found guilty of discrimination.

What are the definitions for quid pro quo and hostile environment infractions under Title

VII? Based on definitions provided by the HR Daily Advisor, quid pro quo is when an employee

is punished in the workplace by their supervisor for not consenting to sexual behaviors (Shultz,

115). This may include a raise, promotion, or even not losing one’s job. Hostile environment

includes frequently occurring, pervasive sexual encounters that can be either verbal or physical

(Sexual Harassment in the Workplace). It is determined to be hostile if a reasonable person

would be uncomfortable by the action done or words spoken.

What are the rights of everyone? What are the rights of the employee? Rowan states that

everyone has the right to equality, freedom, and well-being (91-92). The rights of the employee

include fair pay, safety in the workplace, and due process in the workplace (Rowan, 93). These

rights, and the assurance of safety in the workplace, are all violated to some extent in this case.

Do the women who filed the law suits still work for the company? This question is not

able to be answered but it would be useful information to have. The first is that it would speak to

the magnitude of reform the company underwent throughout the settlement process. If the

women were still working there, this may be indication that the reforms were successful in
 Wagner 4

reducing the cases of sexual harassment in the workplace. However, if the women were no

longer at the plant, there is a good possibility that the company’s efforts were not successful in

reducing the cases of sexual harassment at the plant.

One group of people involved in this case are the employees at Mitsubishi Motors that

were harassing the women. They are acting in the Kohlberg-Gilligan stage three because they are

trying to obtain approval and maintain their place in the group by following the status quo. In the

plant it is common to harass the female employees and not seen as something that they will be

reprimanded for. These people are also operating under egoism because their actions only benefit

themselves. By putting the women down and not treating them with regard for human dignity,

they are only inflating their own self-worth and violating the principle of respect.

Another group of important people in this case are the victims at Mitsubishi Motors. They

are operating under rule-utilitarianism because they believe that the most amount of good will

come from reporting the injustices and trying to improve their situation and work in an

environment that respects human dignity. They also demonstrate Kohlberg stage six because

they value integrity and respect over what they have been told by their supervisors: ignore the

issue and do your job as you should. The victims are operating under benevolence because they

are actively pursuing the improvement of treatment of female employees in addition to their

overall well-being in the Mitsubishi Motors plant.

The Mitsubishi Motors bystanders are a third important group of people for this case.

They are operating under more-restrictive contractarianism because they have put themselves in

the victims’ shoes to determine that they should do something to help the situation. This falls

under the original position portion from Rawls’ moral theory. They also demonstrate the feminist

ethics moral theory because they choose to help the female victims at the plant by reporting the

harassment. This shows care for their employees in addition to displaying integrity places their
 Wagner 5

actions in line with Gilligan stage six because they choose to act out of moral beliefs for doing

the right thing and alerting their superiors about what is going on and value abstract relationships

instead of just following the rules set in place. They are also following rule-utilitarianism

because they also see that the most amount of good will come from reporting the offenses and

attempting to improve the work environment for every employee. Their intention is to stop the

harassment of the female employees, while their motive is to establish a friendlier work

environment for everyone at the plant. The supervisors and managers have brushed off this

problem in the past, therefore action on the part of the bystanders is warranted for this

circumstance.

John Rowe, the director of the EEOC Chicago office, is also operating under more-

restrictive contractarianism. This is because he follows the original position by putting himself in

the victims’ place to determine that the cases need investigated and litigation against Mitsubishi

Motors may be necessary. This is in hopes of promoting a healthy and safe working environment

for the employees. He is also operating under three forms of justice: retributive, distributive, and

procedural. Retributive justice is shown by attempting to punish Mitsubishi Motors for not

handling the sexual harassment claims appropriately. Distributive justice is exemplified by

attempting to establish equality of conditions and opportunity within the plant; everyone has the

opportunity to earn a living under safe working conditions where they are not harassed in any

way. Procedural justice is represented in the investigative and litigation process that goes along

with finding that sexual harassment has taken place in the private sector and that company has

not handled the situation as the law states. He is also operating under the principles of non-

malevolence and benevolence. These are represented in their attempt to prevent further harm to

the victims and to improve their well-being by removing the hostile environment of the

automotive plant. He also is using the principle of double effect because he must weigh the

benefit of helping the women who have been harassed with the negative effect that bringing
 Wagner 6

Mitsubishi’s name into national news will have on the bottom line of the whole company.

Finally, John Rowe is acting in Gilligan stage six because he is prioritizing abstract relationships.

Gary Shultz, Mitsubishi Motors Vice President, and Sheila Randolph, the procurement

branch manager, are operating under conventional morality because they believe that what is best

for the company will be best for them. By promoting the image of Mitsubishi, they are

attempting to minimize the effect that the bad publicity from the sexual harassment allegations

would have on their consumer base. This also results in their use of less-restrictive

contractarianism because they are promoting their place of employment and not further defacing

its name which is what they have agreed to do by working for Mitsubishi Motors. Gary Shultz

and Sheila Randolph also engage in actions that align with Kohlberg stage one and Gilligan stage

five. By trying to avoid punishment from their superiors for talking negatively about their

company, they are acting under Kohlberg stage one. They act out of Gilligan stage five because

they value their relationship with their bosses rather than acting with integrity while dealing with

the sexual harassment allegations.

In acting out of egoism and Kohlberg-Gilligan stage three, the Mitsubishi Motor Harassers

are violating the principle of respect, benevolence, non-malevolence, and integrity. They are not

treating their female coworkers with the amount of dignity required for human beings. In

addition, they are violating non-malevolence and benevolence by intentionally continuing to

harass the female employees. By participating in acts that violate non-malevolence, benevolence,

and respect, they are not acting in a professional manner, therefore they are also violating the

principle of integrity.

A conflict in the actions of the Mitsubishi Motor bystanders exist as they uphold the

principle of integrity, but in doing so, violate less-restrictive contractarianism. While they uphold

integrity by attempting to create a safer work environment for their female coworkers through
 Wagner 7

alerting their superiors and the EEOC, they are violating less-restrictive contractarianism by not

upholding their agreement to speak positively about their company.

Attempting to promote benevolence causes conflict with both Kohlberg stage five and

Gilligan stage five. Upholding the principle of benevolence by going against the direction of the

managers to ignore the situation and admitting to the EEOC that the sexual harassment claims

are true violates the procedures that every employee is supposed to follow which is violating

Kohlberg stage five. Promoting benevolence in this case also requires the violation of Gilligan

stage five because they are ruining personal relationships within the company.

E1

John Rowe and the EEOC should create a list of companies who had issues with sexual

misconduct enforcement and continue to check in on Mitsubishi Motors (in addition to any other

companies) every two years. This should continue until at least 10 years have gone by with no

enforcement issues.

S1

The EEOC would be operating under less restrictive contractarianism because they are

fulfilling their responsibility to monitor how companies handle cases of harassment, and evoke

litigation against companies that have either not acted or acted inappropriately for the situation.

These companies would have an incentive to make effective changes to their company policy

and the way harassment allegations were handled to no longer be required pay penalties and deal

with lawsuits. This will also fulfill act utilitarianism because the greatest amount of happiness

will come from a health work environment, free from intimidation and unwanted advances. The

women and men will be more productive, without having to worry when they are going to be

harassed, and the managers will be able to focus on ways to improve sales rather than dealing

with sexual harassment cases. This option also satisfies commutative justice because they are
 Wagner 8

helping the companies that need the most help in understanding how to handle sexual

misconduct cases.

C1

This option would violate distributive justice because it would create an unbalance of

conditions by helping certain companies more than others. In addition, by placing so much time

and resources on maintaining a harassment-free workplace Mitsubishi Motors will most likely be

less productive which will hurt their bottom line. This violates egoism and creates a double effect

scenario in which someone must decide if it is better to have a bunch of lawsuits from the EEOC

or decrease production for a period until the situation is resolved.

E2

Mitsubishi Motors should hire someone to conduct sexual misconduct trainings and

review the current policies of the company. This will ensure that all the employees understand

what harassment looks like in all circumstances.

S2

This option supports the principle of distributive justice by ensuring that all men and

women are protected equally from sexual harassment. This satisfies the equality of condition

portion of distributive justice. It also satisfies procedural justice because they are ensuring that

the policies of the organization can be carried out effectively and uphold the standards of sexual

harassment training.

C2

This option violates Kohlberg stage five because it involves challenging the rules already

set in place. While reviewing policies is a part of having a business, it is not acceptable

according to Kohlberg, to challenge the rules set in place while in this stage. In addition, this will

also violate egoism because the plant will lose money, affecting their bottom line while the

changes are taking place.

 Wagner 9

E3

Gary Shultz should implement at strike system at the Mitsubishi Motors plant. Each time

an employee is found guilty by a panel of their peers for harassment of any kind, then they will

receive a strike on their employment file and be required to attend a training on harassment. If

an employee has more than three strikes against him or her, then this is cause for termination.

S3

This option supports act utilitarianism because it produces the greatest amount of

happiness for the greatest amount of people. This is done by promoting appropriate interactions

in the workplace, thus improving the overall health of the environment at the automotive plant.

By supporting act utilitarianism, this option also supports the principle of utility by producing the

greatest amount of good for everyone. In addition, the principle of benevolence is supported by

setting forth a specific procedure to deal with harassment allegations. Therefore, the well-being

of the female employees is promoted since they no longer have to endure the daily intimidation.

Finally, it supports distributive justice by enforcing a punishment on people who choose to

sexually harass their coworkers.

C3

This option violates Gilligan stage 5 because the personal relationships between

employees and their boss when there is an inequality in the power of each employee. This stress

also violates the ethics of care (feminist ethics) because the person being fired or gaining another

strike is not being shown compassion. Finally, it violates more-restrictive contractarianism

because they are not putting themselves in the shoes of those doing the harassing to try and

understand what the underlying problem is.

Conclusion

While both the first and third options above had strong ethical support, the first option also

had the weakest ethical criticisms. The first option is supported by strong ethical support
 Wagner 10

including satisfying important theories such as less-restrictive contractarianism, and act-

utilitarianism. Which indicate that the greatest amount of happiness will be achieved with this

option, and the parties involved will do what they have agreed to do. In addition, it also is

supported by the principle of commutative justice and a high-level Gilligan stage. This

indicates the option promotes helping those who are the worst off regarding how they handle

cases of harassment. It also shows there is value in personal relationships over looking for

egoistic acceptance from peers and people of authority. Finally, the criticisms are weak

against this option due to its overarching goal. Therefore, option number one would be the

best option for the EEOC and Mitsubishi Motors to take.

 Wagner 11

Works Cited

“Administrative Enforcement and Litigation,” U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/enforcement_litigation.cfm. Accessed 12

December 2017.

Beauchamp, Tom L. Case Studies in Business, Society, and Ethics, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River,

New Jersey, 2004. Print.

Rowan, John and Samuel Zinaich, Jr. eds. “The Moral Foundation of Employee Rights.” Ethics

for the Professions. Belmont, California, 2003. Print.

“Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: Quid Pro Quo Versus Hostile Work Environment.” HR

Daily Advisor, 29 Aug. 2014, hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2014/09/03/sexual-harassment-in-the-

workplace-quid-pro-quo-versus-hostile-work-environment/.

Shultz, Vicki. “Sex Is the Least of It: Let’s Focus Harassment Law on Work, Not Sex.” Ethics

for the Professions. Eds. John Rowan and Samuel Zinaich, Jr. Belmont, California, 2003.

115-118. Print.

Society for Human Resource Management, “Code of Ethics.” 21 November 2014,

https://www.shrm.org/about-shrm/pages/code-of-ethics.aspx.