Courtland Kelley was working for General Motors over 30 years. He had been the head of a nationwide GM inspection program and then the quality manager. After found the flaws that ignition switch in the Chevrolet Cobalt could easily slip into the “off’ position, Kelley reported them over and over. However the result was disappointed that his colleagues and supervisors kept silence. In Kelley’s opinion, they were more worried about the bureaucracies and avoiding expensive recalls than stopping sale of the vehicle with problems. After that, Kelly sued GM in 2003 under a whistleblower law. GM denied wrongdoing, and the case was dismissed on procedural grounds. Meanwhile, Kelley’s career went into hibernation. It was out until former U.S. Attorney …show more content…
For the responsibilities, he found the flawed ignition switch in their product could easily slip to off, coursing the cutting power, stalling the engine, and disabling airbags just when they’re need most. For the customer safety and company, he report them. Once Kelly found the ethical issue, he made an individual decision to report the problems. Based on his professional knowledge and responsibility, he wanted to warn his colleagues and supervisors over and over. However, he repeatedly found his colleagues' and supervisors' responses wanting. The significant of others were keeping silence. Maybe they were concerned with maintaining their bureaucracies. The report also turned out GM’s culture of complacency. The employees passed the buck and committees fallen back on the “GM nod”-when everyone in a meeting agreed that something should happen, and no one actually did it. Kelly had opportunities, and should report the flaws. So he decided to sue his company, under a whistleblower law. He was agitating not to harm the company or enrich himself but save it. He considered it was the right thing to do. He still remained loyal to his employer. When I evaluate his behavior, I find he treat this ethical issues very well. There is no obviously wrong for him. Comparing the unfair treating from GM, Kelley has been floating from position to position, still has a job, but didn't have a career, no
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
The court will likely hold that Andrew Keegan’s (“Mr. Keegan”) actions were a product of a law enforcement officer in influencing his conduct therefore establishing an entrapment defense.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier of 1987-1988 Background: At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. In May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper, he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. An article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce.
MILLERSBURG — After deliberating for three hours, a jury of four women and eight men found a Holmesville man guilty of making and possessing methamphetamine, all within the vicinity of juveniles and a school.
Hughes sought quantity while the whistleblower was focused on the quality of the product. The unethical standpoint of Hughes disregarded the required quality of product that they were supposed to create. Goodearl, from a standpoint of virtue ethics, a tradition within philosophical ethics that seeks a full and detailed description of those character traits, or virtues, that would constitute a good and full human life,(Hartman, p. 123) could not let her integrity be compromised by knowingly passing faulty products. Within this conflict of interests, and before resorting to whistleblowing, Goodearl attempted to handle the situation within the company but met resistance. With threats of retaliation as far a threats of being fired and on her status as not being a legal resident and the consequences of losing her job. Her approach to the situation should be seen as ethical even in a utilitarian perspective as she sought to do the greatest good both for the agencies receiving the products as well as letting the issue be handled internally so there would be less harm done to the company itself. When this approach had been exhausted and met with resistance at each occurrence, was when the path of becoming a whistleblower was taken. At this point it should still be seen as an ethical decision due to the fact that she had attempted multiple times to handle the situation for the greatest
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
In this case analysis, Molly Wright was murdered on 27th Sept 2006, at Redhill Gardens, Airedale, Castleford in the United Kingdom. Bloodstain Pattern Expert Samantha Warna is correct in her testimony. She testifies that the victim, Molly Wright, was killed by her son in law and business partner, David Hill. If she said that she found blood stain patterns on his shoes, jeans, and the denim jacket that he was wearing at the time of her murder (Casey, 2012).
Facts: Mr. Walter Mickens Jr. brought an appeal, habeas petition, after being sentenced to death for premeditated murder, during or following the act of sodomy of Timothy Hall. Mr. Mickens later had learned that his appointed attorney had represented the victim at a prior date and stated this course of action violated his sixth amendment and was a conflict of interest on his attorney’s part. His lead attorney, Mr. Brian Saunders, never at any point of his representation of Mr. Mickens, disclosed he had represented the victim or let the District Judge know when he was appointed to Mr. Mickens that he had in the past represented Mr. Hall, victim, in juvenile
The Colten Boushie and Gerald Stanley Case The Colten Boushie and Gerald Stanley case stands as a stark reminder of the persistent divide in Canadian society. The unfortunate death of Colten Boushie, a young Indigenous man, and the subsequent acquittal of Gerald Stanley radiated uproar and combative debate over systemic racism, economic disparities, and justice inequality. The case of Colten Boushie and Gerald Stanley stirred a national conversation about Canada's treatment of its Indigenous Peoples and the functioning of its justice system. The press release first given to the public only stated, “Three occupants from the vehicle, including two females (one being a youth) and one adult male were taken into custody as part of a related theft
In August of 2001 Robert Ray Courtney was arrested in Kansas City, Missouri and charged with diluting drugs used to treat cancer patients. Courtney’s actions not only violated criminal and civil laws but they shattered the ethical code and the oath he took as a licensed pharmacist. His actions left many people wondering why anyone would commit such a horrible act, let alone a trusted pharmacist who was providing medication to patients whose very lives depended on him doing his job.
The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. The Warren Courts were the catalyst for change in the areas of discrimination based on factors of faith, race or other categorizations was the catalyst for the evolution of reappointment and voting, established Maranda, and laid the ground work for woman to have the right to make decisions concerning own reproduction rights.
Good morning, ladies and gentleman of the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales. I am Madeleine Foutes, Defense Attorney for my client, Mr. Jack Merridew. Mr. Merridew, along with a plane’s worth of fellow British schoolboys, were marooned on an island located in the South Pacific Ocean after their plane was struck with a bomb from the ongoing war. Unfortunately, none of the adults on the flight survived the crash, which left the boys to fend for themselves.
Many other businesses may not want to do business as the company was involved with immoral behavior. The unethical business practices of the company will also gain exposure in the media and to the public (Nicol, 2015, n.p). Employees no longer keep unethical activities of the company to themselves. As a whistleblower, they may be perceived as a traitor, but in this case the senior executives are being traitors. They are taking money from immoral behavior and tarnishing the name of the company (Nicol, 2015, n.p).
The first recommendation for KIPP Houston is to creatively increase funding. One option would be to utilize crowdfunding; which is the practice of funding a project or venture by raising monetary contributions from a large number of people. This form of crowdsourcing has become a successful alternative finance. Another option is to increase the number of wealthy investors and continue to expand this source of revenue. KIPP needs to decrease the amount spent on salaries for upper management.
By inducting ethical business practices, the need for whistleblowers will not be needed, but there is always someone that crosses the line. Therefore, by encouraging whistleblowing and supervised departmental and corporate performance concerning ethical questions. Whistleblowing is an ethical procedure when there is clear evidence of serious evidence, that will harm the public and the blower has tried to find an internal solution to effect change. The whistleblower who is associated with the unethical activity has a moral responsibility to do the right thing. Companies always know there is a possibility that the whistle will be blown, in this case the obstacle is created by knowledge that their employees stand to gain an advantage from uncovering corporate misbehaviour and thus they may be proactively looking for other people outside the organization to inform the authorities.