Substance Abuse Case Study

The first ethical issue described in the read and sing scenario are abusive or intimidating behavior. For instance, Curtis verbally torments Jackie and threatens her that her music would go nowhere unless she agrees to his demands. The second dilemma is lying. Curtis had lied to Jackie in the first place to the extent of getting sexual favors all in the name of love. Little did Jackie know this was a fraud. The third issue is discrimination. Because of Jackie’s gender, there seems to be no one in the company willing to help her out. The final issue is sexual harassment. Curtis places demands on Jackie in order to help her spearhead her career.
From a personal perspective, Jackie is a victim of both sexual harassment and gender discrimination. For instance, Curtis blatantly requests for sexual favors even in front of the band members. Curtis could not stop the behavior even after apologizing in the first place. Curtis had lied to her to get a romantic relationship but all he wanted was sex. In

addition, Curtis does not care about the feeling of Jackie, as he just wants to have fun. Jackie is discriminated in the legal office by Leslie who warned her against suing Curtis. Jackie could not get any assistance because of the label’s superior employee ethics code that is biased.
Cases of discriminations especially for female employees in companies are very prevalent. Jackie should not keep quiet regarding her case. She should speak and probably report the incident to the police. Sexual harassment is different from sexual assault and it is not a criminal offense but it is against the law. Jackie could file a lawsuit against the Curtis and demand for monetary damages for the emotional injuries suffered. In some cases, if the sexual harassment suit is successful, the victim can be reinstated in his or her job and get compensated the fringe benefits lost. “Thanks to plaintiffs of the past 50 years and their arduous battles under Title VII with quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile environment sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, gender discrimination in benefits and work assignments, and many other indignities, we have passed through the era of blatant, unactionable gender-based discrimination” (Dunham, 2017).

Google is one of the most used internet search engine in the world. It was said that “search engine Google has the worst privacy policy of key online companies and was referred to as 'hostile to privacy' in a report by human rights group Privacy International” (In Brief, 2007). From a personal perspective, Google’s storage of user data is appropriate and does not violate user’s privacy. It is important to note that Google has transformed the way people conduct research and this can be attributed to the constant refining of the search engine using the user data. “There are two dimensions to consumer privacy: consumer awareness of information collection and a growing lack of consumer control over how companies use the personal information that they collect” (Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J, & Ferrell, L., 2013). Regarding privacy, Google has a privacy disclosure fully visible on the page and it is up to the user to agree or disagree.
In addition, the data becomes anonymized after 18 months meaning that the users cannot be traced back. However, Google has failed its users by allowing government agencies to track individuals using anonymized data. This should not be happening, as there is an agreement that the data would not be used. Therefore, Google should not allow access to the anonymized data whatsoever. Google has revolutionized the internet experience, as anything one wants is available on the web. Limiting the use of data to improve the experience would be sabotaging the technological advancements in the contemporary society. Therefore, Google should redraft its terms and conditions to make sure that the users are aware of who will see their search queries and how they can enhance the privacy policy to avoid any external interference. The company should also seek protection from political interference by using the court to keep the government out of their business (Trevino & Nelson, 2016).

“The CFPB, a new bureau that Congress established as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform act, issued a detailed request for comment on arbitration clauses.

It's the beginning of a process, also mandated by Congress, to examine whether the clauses help or hurt consumers (Fisher, 2012). Many consumers have always found themselves on the receiving end when it comes to financial difficulties. This is why the Dodd-frank act created the consumer financial protection bureau (CPFB) to help consumers and investors better understand the complex financial products they are purchasing. Critics have argued that the bureau will bring an extra cost of borrowing and credit cards by putting a burden on banks through increased regulation. From a personal perspective, the CPFBs benefits to consumers outweigh the burden on financial institutions. For instance, consider a situation where an investor is defrauded a sum of $100,000 dollars for a purchase of property that does not

exist.
The investor can either lose all the money or spend something small to conduct due diligence before making a purchase. This way, the fraudsters will have to face several institutions to verify the transaction and this will reduce the chances of the investor being conned. This is a major advancement in the financial sector because people have lost huge amounts of money because of their limited knowledge on financial issues. The move is a brilliant way to protect innocent consumers from rogue business people in the industry. I am certain that the bureau will benefit consumers who have been suffering for a long time in the financial field. “For the past 10 years or so—at least since last decade’s financial crisis—a number of respected experts in economics and finance have argued that simply requiring banks to maintain much higher levels of capital can solve many of the problems of systemic risk without imposing serious costs on the banks” (Davis, 2018).

Ever since the Dodd-frank act was signed into federal law in 2010, several critics have argued against its effectiveness. Some are arguing that the act imposes a great burden on financial institutions and others argue that it does not go far enough to prevent the “too big to fail” scenario that have been seen in the recent financial crisis. “As the financial crisis manifested itself and peaked in 2007 and 2008, the response of US policymakers and regulators was shaped in important ways by legal and political constraints (Swagel, 2015). The current state of the executive orders regarding Dodd-Frank act is that two financial agencies should be created i.e. the office of financial research and the financial stability oversight council. The office of financial research has a mandate to improve the quality of financial data available to government officials and creating a better system of analysis, the financial stability oversight council is responsible for maintaining the stability of the financial system in the United States though market monitoring, threat identification, and market discipline promotion.
The bill is undergoing some changes under the Trump administration as the president plans to reduce regulation by scrapping some of the provisions of the Dodd Frank act such as the fiduciary rule that requires financial advisors to put their clients’ interest first when investing their money as opposed to choosing investments that would result in higher commissions for themselves (Kaufman, & Nelson, 2016). From a personal perspective, the Dodd-frank act is a good regulation and will help protect consumers from rogue financial advisors. However, the act is enormously complex and striking a balance has been challenging ever since it was created. Some provisions such as the fiduciary rule need to be revised to make the law more efficient. Nevertheless, the Dodd-frank act provisions help in making the financial structure more resilient (Kaufman, & Nelson, 2016).