Micah Hejlik Case Study Analysis Paper-Rough Draft 03/23/2014 PHI 311 Dr.

Ciapalo

AIDS Case In this case study analysis paper, I shall argue that it is morally unacceptable for Carla to fire Tom Walters from the bagel shop. Since the 1980s, AIDS/HIV has been a major factor for employment all over the world. It can affect the work performance of the employee dramatically as he continues to lose weight dramatically and his health continues to decrease. It can also affect the financial benefits as the company continues to provide benefits for the employee so he can provide for his/her family or significant other. When I heard the debate in class, I thought of the movie Philadelphia, which stars Tom Hanks as a lawyer infected by AIDS. He sued the firm where he used to work because of wrongful termination and discrimination. The infected lawyer won the case through a dramatic trial and died of the disease soon after. He worked as a lawyer as long as his body lets him and he was hailed as a hero because of the court battle. The lawyer won several million dollars donating most of them to charity and some of the money to his life partner. AIDS must never be an issue for termination in the first place. AIDS is not infected unless you have unprotected sex or any other inappropriate contact with the infected person before he/she was diagnosed. Firing a person for having AIDS is a violation of the care theory, natural rights theory, the justice theory, and Catholic Social Teachings. It may help someone who follows the utilitarian way, but, the rest of the theories have moral standards that require someone to take care of the person infected with AIDS and give them the right to work. According to rights theory, the relevant facts that support my moral judgment are as follows. Carla had known that it was illegal to fire Tom for having AIDS. It goes against her morals and ethics. Firing Tom deprives the employee of the right to work, sufficient health care,

Micah Hejlik Case Study Analysis Paper-Rough Draft 03/23/2014 PHI 311 Dr. Ciapalo

adequate working conditions, a just wage, and also his right to privacy if the word gets out that he has AIDS. Tom has the right to work at the bagel shop and the rewards that it brings by working there by becoming the manager. He also has the right to sufficient health care and adequate working conditions by his employer Carla because it is her job to take care of her employees if they wish to continue working despite having this horrible disease. If an employee like Tom has AIDS, they should have the money for health care and family because if Tom dies, then, hell give the money to his family or significant other. Tom has the right to a just wage in this sense. Also, if Carla fired Tom, it would certainly violate his right to privacy. Tom has a decent right to keep a disease hidden and life would go on. But, Carla panicked because of the social dangers that may occur to the bagel shop. On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposite of my moral judgment are as follows: It removes any difficulties in the workplace, and the employee has no legal grounds for complaint if he or she is left on the payroll. And then there was always the question of Toms future work performance. If he was really ill, his work performance would probably decline and Carla is wondering to have some kind of plan to deal with this. In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral judgment outweighs the opposite conclusion. The firing may violate a few rights for Tom, like the right to work and a right to a sufficient health care. But, those two rights are the most relevantly important rights in this case because it supports the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Tom should stay on the job because of his natural right to work and be provided health care. An employer should be great friends with his employees if theyre on his good side. And Tom was always on Carlas good side because he works just as hard as everybody. So, employers should put those rights to play so that they can take care of the employee as long as

Micah Hejlik Case Study Analysis Paper-Rough Draft 03/23/2014 PHI 311 Dr. Ciapalo

they can work. Carla should be doing something to take care of Tom and keep the secret so that Tom can spend the rest of his life working and earning money for his family or significant other. Therefore, it would be morally unacceptable for Carla to fire Tom because it violates his right to work, a just wage, sufficient health care, and privacy. According to the Care Theory, the relevant facts that support my moral judgment are as follows. Carla Lombard was visited by Toms ex-wife Frances and told Carla that Tom had AIDS. Frances said she was telling Carla because she always liked her and thought she was entitled to know because she was Toms employer. Carla was shocked and embarrassed and didnt know whether she should even discuss Tom with Frances. She saw Tom the next day and was still concerned and upset about Toms condition. Perhaps he had been thinner and looked tired more often the last few months, but, Tom is his usual upbeat self. She wanted to discuss the AIDS issue with Tom, but, couldnt bring herself to mention it. She had always liked Tom as a person, but, the priority of an employer/employee relationship was put into question. Carla and Tom have a good relationship in the bagel shop, but, the AIDS situation changed everything. On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposite of my moral judgment are as follows. Carla barely knew Tom as a person, only as an employee. She put herself in his shoes and said that Toms health situation is his business and no one elses. She wouldnt tell her employer about her disease. But, the Dennys customer issue came in as a cook was diagnosed with AIDS and customers began to leave the local Dennys. So, she had a huge moral dilemma. Either she takes care of Tom and keep him on the job as long as he is able to work, or fire him and bring the customers back. In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral judgment outweighs the opposite conclusion. Carla has a fine working relationship with Tom and

Micah Hejlik Case Study Analysis Paper-Rough Draft 03/23/2014 PHI 311 Dr. Ciapalo

her relationship doesnt outweigh the work that she has to do. In that situation, she treated Tom like an employee and thought of her business before anything else. She believes that the importance of the customer outweighs the importance of the employee. An employer must take care of the worker because the employer has the right to know if the worker can still work despite having a life-threatening disease. Carla should have talked to Tom and ask if Tom would still be able to work despite the AIDS situation. She must do all she can to give him benefits for the job so he can take care of himself and his family. Tom is a person, not an employee. Carla should have looked at the personality of a person and have a good relationship inside and outside the workplace. In most workplaces, the relationship doesnt exist. The employer may see the employee outside the workplace, but, can only greet them on some occasions. Therefore, it is immoral for Carla to fire Tom because she put in the obligations of an employee-employer relationship instead of a person caring for another person. Carla did not exhibit appropriate care for the well-being of Tom by not talking about his AIDS situation. The employer has the right to know, not for the sake of business, but, to care for the person and his basic needs. According to Catholic Social Teaching, the relevant facts that support my moral judgment are as follows. Carla was concerned about Tom when she found out about his diagnosis with AIDS. She thought that he got very thin and looked very tired more often the last few months. And Tom was usually his upbeat self. She wondered whether it was her business to take care of Tom and his basic financial and employment needs. When Carla heard about what happened at a local Dennys about the chef with AIDS, she had an extreme moral dilemma that is contrary to CST. Carla knew it in her heart and in her business mind that she cant fire Tom for basically having AIDS. But, Tom is a basic human being who has his own transcendent end,

Micah Hejlik Case Study Analysis Paper-Rough Draft 03/23/2014 PHI 311 Dr. Ciapalo

which is to make people happy through his work at the bagel shop, who has a fundamental dignity and worth as a creature made in Gods image, has the right to work, a just wage, and health care benefits, who must achieve the common good through his work at the bagel shop, and should be treated justly. On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposite of my moral judgment are as follows. Carla has to think about the customers. Few principles would be worthy of protecting, which is the common good because there may not be any customers once word gets out that Tom has AIDS. The bagel shop is a successful business and Carla must do what it takes to sustain it, socially and financially. If there is a controversy, then, less customers will come in. Another principle that is worthy of this opposite judgment is the fundamental dignity principle. It goes both ways, either one person is better than the many or the many is better than the one. This distinction is hard, but, in the opposite judgment, then the customers have a fundamental dignity and worth as people who support their own beliefs in whether people with AIDS do not belong in the workplace or not. In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral judgment outweighs the opposite conclusion. The 5 principles will be protected through keeping Tom as long as he is able to work. Tom is a social being working toward his own transcendent end, a person with dignity and worth as a creature made in Gods image where everybody is equal in Gods eyes. He has certain natural rights that must be protected and has the right to work to achieve the common good. Tom works to please his customers through his great service and devotion to the bagel shop. And also, Tom should be treated with justice by reminding him that the employer knows that he has AIDS and gives Tom the basic care that he deserves. Through this, they must care for the word not to spread in this case, but, Tom is a human being and must be treated with dignity, respect, and justice.

Micah Hejlik Case Study Analysis Paper-Rough Draft 03/23/2014 PHI 311 Dr. Ciapalo

These are the reasons why Carla should not fire Tom because of his AIDS situation. Hes a person who has rights to be protected. Tom is a person who needs care because of his condition when he needs it most and he is one of Gods creatures as we all are. There may be problems that might come out of keeping Tom when word gets out that he has AIDS, but, as long as Tom is able to work, then, the public must respect the companys decision even if it means it loses customers.