Reference no: EM133264495

This scenario describes Maria's previous employment at an unnamed agency. During her three years of employment at the agency, Maria experienced and witnessed acts of sexual and racial harassment. Having gained employment elsewhere, she now enjoys freedom from fears of termination by her past employer. Knowing that others continue to be the target of such abuses, she wonders if she has a micro-level ethical obligation to undertake actions against the meso-level organizational ethics of her former agency. Maria seeks an answer; she reaches one by applying the Kew Gardens principles:

1. Given the well-known psychological and moral consequences of harassment, it is clear that it will result in social injury. As the severity of that injury is difficult to assess, it is also hard to determine whether the need is increasing or decreasing. The increasing need will add to Maria's responsibility. Regardless, the potential-if not the certainty-of social injury exists. As such, a need for action exists.

2. Over a period of three years, harassment of both a sexual and racial nature was observed.

Despite relocation to other employment, a responsibility may remain. According to the Kew Gardens principles, such knowledge is defined as proximity. Further, having been immersed in such a hostile environment, it is safe to assume that knowledge of resulting risk and social injury exists.

3. Having established that need and proximity are present, it must be determined if there are actions available that might be expected to provide relief. In other words, "Is there a capability to pursue such a remedy?" Appropriate legal channels exist for such grievances, and, since these procedures may not produce substantial hardship, reasonable strategies are available. Therefore, the necessary capacity is present.

4. Those employees who remain in the department feel helpless as fears of reprisal (including termination) prevent the fling of formal complaints. With this decreased likelihood comes greater obligation on an individual level. Although such determination is complex, and many variables exist, the level of responsibility grows as it becomes more and more likely that an individual is the last resort. In this case, however, it is difficult to imagine that there are no other possibilities. Other options may be complicated or unpleasant, but they likely exist. Here, the case may not adequately meet the criterion of last resort.