Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 104 views

    Chapter 7 - Case Study

    Uploaded by

    Angelica
    Ralphs Grocery should be held responsible for the sexual harassment actions of their former employee Misiolek because complaints were made to store managers but policies prevented them from reaching headquarters. While Kroger should not have to pay for events that occurred before acquiring Ralphs, they are now legally responsible as the owner. To prevent future issues, companies must have clear policies against harassment, processes to address complaints, and ensure managers are not kept solely due to financial performance if their actions contribute to an unethical work environment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Chapter 7 - Case Study

    Uploaded by

    Angelica
    104 views2 pages
    Ralphs Grocery should be held responsible for the sexual harassment actions of their former employee Misiolek because complaints were made to store managers but policies prevented them from reaching headquarters. While Kroger should not have to pay for events that occurred before acquiring Ralphs, they are now legally responsible as the owner. To prevent future issues, companies must have clear policies against harassment, processes to address complaints, and ensure managers are not kept solely due to financial performance if their actions contribute to an unethical work environment.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ralphs Grocery should be held responsible for the sexual harassment actions of their former employee Misiolek because complaints were made to store managers but policies prevented them from reaching headquarters. While Kroger should not have to pay for events that occurred before acquiring Ralphs, they are now legally responsible as the owner. To prevent future issues, companies must have clear policies against harassment, processes to address complaints, and ensure managers are not kept solely due to financial performance if their actions contribute to an unethical work environment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    104 views2 pages

    Chapter 7 - Case Study

    Uploaded by

    Angelica
    Ralphs Grocery should be held responsible for the sexual harassment actions of their former employee Misiolek because complaints were made to store managers but policies prevented them from reaching headquarters. While Kroger should not have to pay for events that occurred before acquiring Ralphs, they are now legally responsible as the owner. To prevent future issues, companies must have clear policies against harassment, processes to address complaints, and ensure managers are not kept solely due to financial performance if their actions contribute to an unethical work environment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Jean Angelica D.

    Cabigao
    BUS 185 – T (6:10 – 9:00 pm)

    Chapter 7 – Should Kroger Pay Now for What Ralphs' Employee Did in the Past?

    1. Assuming that the store and district managers of Ralphs received complaints about Misiolek’s
    behavior starting in 1985, but that these complaints did not reach Ralphs’ headquarters in
    Compton, do you believe that the judge is right in holding that the company as a whole should
    not be held responsible for his actions? Should the company be held responsible for policies that
    prevent complaints from reaching headquarters?
     The judge is not right that the company should not be held responsible for his actions
    since there is discrimination and sexual harassment. As there is a tight relationship
    between ethics and business. It is important to meet the employees’ needs in the future
    for business success. Any company should be held responsible for their actions including
    Ralphs. As corporate organizations are morally responsible for their actions and that their
    actions are moral or immoral in the same sense that human beings are. Hence, Ralphs are
    morally responsible for their actions assumed that the complaints did not reach Ralphs’s
    headquarters in Compton or not. Ralphs Grocery should be held responsible because their
    management did not facilitate feedback, and for policies that prevent complaints from
    employee reaching headquarters. There was also no control mechanism or agency to
    discover the employees’ actions on Ralphs Grocery Co. The most important thing that
    should be underlined is when several women already complained to Ralph’s
    management, but the company did not take any disciplinary action towards Misiolek.
    Misiolek did not received any punishment from the agency toward his actions and was
    not removed from his position as store manager but instead moved the complaining
    women to other stores.
    2. What kind of penalty do you believe would be appropriate for Ralphs? In your view, was the
    initial $33.3 million penalty excessive? Explain. Was the final 2006 judgment fair? Explain.
     The penalty appropriate for Ralphs should be compensatory and punitive damages. It
    would be such a good idea based on compensatory justice principal. In my point of view,
    it is depending on how much the cost to rehabilitate the victims and how much the
    victims were aggrieved. According to the Sexual Harassment Support (2006), sexual
    harassment victims can suffer the same effect as rape victims in a way that they suffer
    mentally and physically. So, the $33.3 million penalty may not be excessive because the
    effects of sexual harassment may cause those women psychologically and mentally.
    Especially for those who were grabbed, touched, patted, hugged, touched their breasts
    which was way more offensive should be given much more than rehabilitation cost
    penalty.
    3. Should Kroger have to pay for events that happened before it took over the chain of
    supermarkets?
     No, since it is considered as individual discrimination, consists of the discriminatory act
    of one individual who intentionally discriminates out of personal prejudice, considered
    sexual harassment, and unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance.
    Ethically, Kroger should not pay at all because the incident occurred before Kroger even
    owned Ralphs, but it depends on the acquisition contract between Kroger with Fred
    Meyer and Fred Meyer with Ralphs. Kroger must pay the fine because Kroger itself has
    broken their policies of zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment. Moreover, by law,
    Kroger has a responsibility for all the business activities that it owned. Kroger now
    owned Ralphs, Kroger hold responsibility for its assets and liabilities in accordance with
    condition or agreement made between the two parties. It should be their full
    responsibility for being punished for performing sex harassment.
    4. What can a company do to make sure that a situation like Misiolek’s does not occur? Why do
    you think Ralphs allowed Misiolek to continue managing stores?
     A policy that should exist are written with zero-tolerance policy prohibiting sexual
    harassment, conduct some control mechanism by facilitating employee feedback, online
    complain media, and supervisory for manager. All complaints must be thoroughly
    investigated and must have proper corrective actions. In order to prevent the occurrence
    of similar scenarios in the future, there is a need to formulate a clear-cut procedure for
    dealing with these kinds of issues. Companies must also strictly adhere to the various
    provisions of human rights and integrity of employees. Ralphs should review its code of
    ethics and policies and harassment to make sure that unfortunate case would not happen
    again. It should create a good corporate governance and stricter sexual harassment
    punishments. However, the only reason why they allowed him to keep and let him
    continue his job was because of how well he was as a worker. Because as they said,
    whichever store he was working that place were kept flourishing and making excellent
    figures. Ralphs allowed Misiolek to continue managing store because of his capability to
    achieve profits at the stores that he manages and of having an excellent bottom line
    figures at those stores.

    You might also like