Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Business Ethics and Jury Misconduct

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    1. Business Ethics. Jason Trevor owns a commercial bakery in Blakely, Georgia, that produces a variety of goods sold in grocery stores. Trevor is required by law to perform internal tests on food produced at his plant to check for contamination. On three occasions, the tests of food products containing peanut butter were positive for salmonella contamination. Trevor was not required to report the results to U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials, however so he did not. Instead, Trevor instructed his employees to simply repeat the tests until the results were negative. Meanwhile, the products that had originally tested positive for salmonella were shipped out to retailers. Five people who ate Trevorâ??s baked goods that year became seriously ill, and one person died from a salmonella infection. Even though Trevorâ??s conduct was legal, was it unethical for him to sell goods that had once tested positive for salmonella? If
    Trevor had followed the six basic guidelines for making ethical business decisions, would he still have sold the contaminated goods? Why or why not?

    2. Jury Misconduct. Michelle Fleshner worked for Pepose Vision Institute (PVI), a surgical practice. She was fired after she provided information to the Department of Labor about PVI's overtime pay policy. She sued for wrongful termination, and the jury awarded her $125,000. After the trial, a juror told PVI's attorneys that another juror had made anti-Semitic statements during jury deliberations. The comments concerned a witness who testified on PVI's behalf. According to the juror, the other juror said, about the witness: She is a Jewish witch. She is a penny-pinching Jew. She was such a cheap Jew that she did not want to pay Plaintiff unemployment compensation. Another juror confirmed the remarks. PVI filed at motion for a new trial on the basis of juror misconduct. The trial judge held that the comments did not prevent a fair trial from occurring. PVI appealed. Do you think such comments are sufficient to require a new trial, or must a juror's bias be discovered during voir dire for it to matter? Explain. (Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, 304 S.W 3d 81(Mo.2010)

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 4, 2020, 2:03 am ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    Hello there. To help you answer these questions I have complied the following resources:

    The Six Basic Guidelines for making ethical business decisions:

    1. Define the problem
    2. Identify alternatives
    3. Evaluate the alternatives
    4. Make the decision
    5. Implement the decision
    6. Evaluate the decision

    Just because Jason can sell the peanut butter without reporting it to the FDA doesn't mean he should ...

    Solution Summary

    Discusses six guidelines for making ethical decisions, and explains the concept of jury bias.