Reference no: EM133013675

Should Non Compete Agreements Be Legal?

This challenge considers the human resource policy of asking new hires to sign a noncompete agreement. Noncompete agreements (NCAs) are "employment provisions that ban workers at one company from going to work for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job." In other words, the agreement prohibits the person signing it from working with another company that could be viewed as a competitor. The concept was born from the idea that when employees leave an organization, they might take trade secrets and other important information and use it to help a competitor gain a competitive advantage.

Critical Intervention Services (CIS), a private security firm in Florida, sued Michael Kenny for violating a noncompete agreement after Kenny worked as a security guard for the company for 13 days. Shortly after starting the job, the veteran and single father was unable to find child care during his 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. Kenny alleged that when he asked for a different shift, the company told him to either work his assigned shift or quit. CIS alleged that Kenny "went to work, not only for a direct competitor, but for an existing CIS client," and that he now had specialized security knowledge from the training he had participated in.

Jessica Bell signed a noncompete agreement in a "stack of paperwork" she received when she joined Citrix software company in Raleigh, North Carolina. Bell got wind of potential layoffs at Citrix about two years into the job and began searching for employment with other companies. She took a position with Egnyte, a Silicon Valley-based tech firm that had recently opened a sales office in Raleigh. A few weeks into her new job, Bell and six other former Citrix employees working for Egnyte received letters from Citrix informing them that they were violating the non compete clause. Egnyte filed suit against Citrix, asking that the court rule the noncompete agreements were overly broad and therefore unenforceable.

Citrix countersued Egnyte and the seven employees, stating that Egnyte had hired the former Citrix workers "in order to engage in unfair competition with Citrix." Egnyte vowed to foot the legal bill for all seven employees and maintained that it hired them on the basis of talent, not to steal Citrix's intellectual property or customers. Bell said, "I certainly didn't think this would have implications and that they would have any control or power over my ability to feed my family essentially after I left Citrix." She noted an obvious misunderstanding about what she was agreeing to when she signed Citrix's noncompete clause.

The incidence of noncompete lawsuits has nearly tripled since 2000, and their legality varies by state.280 About 20% of U.S. workers have signed such agreements. Noncompete clauses have even extended to lower-level jobs; approximately 14% of employees who make less than $40,000 a year are bound by them.

Should companies be allowed to force employees to sign noncompete agreements?

1. Of course. Every company needs to protect its proprietary and confidential information.
2. In moderation. I agree that it makes sense to protect proprietary information like formulas, equations, trade secrets, and intellectual property for certain occupations or industries. But this should not apply to all jobs, such as working in a sandwich shop.
3. No. They should be against the law because they prohibit people from finding employment.
4. Invent other options. Explain.

 Pick one of the four options, why you did not pick the other three?

2.Should Airlines Accommodate Oversized People?

Traveling on an airplane can be extra difficult for overweight and tall people. The width of an average airplane seat has decreased from 18.5 inches in the early 2000s to around 17 inches.390 Given individual differences in hip width, this can be a problem, particularly for women. The Civilian American and European Surface Anthropometry Resource Project (Caesar) investigated the issue, backed by funding from a consortium of scientific research organizations and engineering and aerospace companies.

The Caesar project measured more than 4,000 people from the United States and Europe and uncovered the following: "The hip breadth of men in the 95th percentile of the population, i.e., on the very big side, measures 17.6 inches." This means that 95% of all men can fit into a standard Airbus seat. In contrast, females face a different situation. According to Caesar's report, "the hip breadth of women in the 90th percentile is 19.2 inches, and those in the 95th percentile have hips measuring 22.4 inches." The core skeletal system is the reason for the difference between men and women. Females simply have a larger pelvis than men.

Seat pitch, the distance between seat backs, also is decreasing. This makes for less leg room for all people. The typical seat pitch in economy class has narrowed from 35 to 31 inches, with some airlines offering as little as 28 inches of legroom.

Do you think airlines should be bound by minimum seat size and leg room standards? The advocacy group Flyers Rights has campaigned for federally regulated seat sizes, citing concerns such as inability to quickly evacuate aircraft and health hazards like deep vein thrombosis. Although there are currently no such regulations in the United States, federal judges recently ordered the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to review commercial airline seat sizes and pitch. Some people believe that forcing airlines to establish bigger, standard seat sizes ultimately increases fares. Industry group Airlines for America opposes the idea, for instance. "The group notes that the FAA should regulate seat size for safety, but should not substitute its judgments for market forces on what people are willing to pay." Others believe airlines should focus more on passenger comfort than profit. "There is an industry standard, and, within that standard, the obsession is profit," says Kimberly Dark, the author of Fat, Pretty, and Soon to Be Old: A Makeover for Self and Society.

The trends are clear. In general, airlines are adding seats while decreasing seat width and pitch. These changes clearly affect taller, wider, and heavier individuals and may even pose health risks to passengers. "I don't think airlines are recognizing the size of Americans," a frequent flyer tells The Wall Street Journal. Samoa Air is resolving this issue by charging fees based on passengers' weight. Does this seem ethical?

The question to consider is whether seat width and pitch should be regulated by law or determined by market forces.

1. I recommend creating a national standard for airline seats based on the average passenger as opposed to using gender as part of the computation. I would standardize seat width based on passengers' average hip size. I also would standardize seat pitch so that it accommodates passengers' average height. Once this is done, I would charge passengers a special fee for more space.
2. Let market forces determine the design of airplanes and fares. The government should stay out of this issue. For example, Airbus's A220 expanded seat width to 18.5 inches and included 19 inches for the middle seat.398
3. Because women, on average, have larger hip breadth than men, it is not fair to base fees on the size of a seat. This would disadvantage women. I would standardize seat width based on the average size of women. People can pay extra fees if they want additional seat width or pitch.
4. Invent other options.

 Pick one of the four options, why you did not pick the other three?

3.Recreational Marijuana Use: A Manager's Quandary

This challenge examines issues that may arise when co-workers smoke marijuana together outside work. We first provide background on the legalities of using marijuana before reviewing the case.

Legalities of Using Marijuana

Eleven states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana use as of 2020: Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Another 33 allow for medical marijuana use. Both recreational and medical marijuana use are still deemed illegal by the federal government, however. As a result, some employers screen employees for marijuana use, even in states where it is permissible. This is particularly true for employers that contract with the federal government and certain positions deemed "safety-sensitive," such as commercial drivers and heavy equipment operators. Some states that allow for marijuana use have pushed back. For example, Nevada enacted a law in 2020 protecting employees from discrimination solely on the basis of marijuana use.

The Case

You work in a state where it is illegal to use marijuana recreationally, and your employer has a zero-tolerance policy regarding the use of drugs. You also are a supervisor at a telephone call center and have very positive relationships with members of your work team and your manager. Blake is a member of your work team.

Blake invited you to his birthday party at his home, and you happily agreed to attend. During the party, you walked out to the backyard to get some fresh air and noticed that Blake and several other employees of your company were smoking marijuana. None of these individuals have prescriptions for medical marijuana. You have been told on several occasions by members of your own work team that these same individuals have used marijuana at other social events.

Although Blake is a member of your work team, the other smokers are not. You don't really feel any need to tell management about these people smoking pot because you have never noticed their being impaired at work. At the same time, you feel conflicted because your employer takes a hard stand against the use of any drugs. If the company found out that you knew about their smoking, it could adversely affect your career. The company expects managers to act with honesty and integrity and to be forthright with senior management.

The following week you receive an email from the vice president of human resources to evaluate Blake for a promotion to a supervisory position. Blake is one of three people being considered. You have a great relationship with the VP, but you know he takes a hard line on drug use. At the same time, you believe Blake is a good employee, but you wonder whether his smoking marijuana shows bad judgment for someone being considered for a managerial position at the company. As you close the VP's e-mail, you begin to consider how to respond.

As Blake's supervisor, what would you do?

1. I would not tell the vice president of human resources about Blake's drug use. He's doing a good job and I have not seen any impairment.
2. I would tell the vice president of human resources about the incident in which I observed Blake smoking marijuana, but I also would reinforce that he is a good performer. My gut feeling is that I need to honor the company's zero-tolerance policy on drug use.
3. I would talk to Blake. I would explain my predicament and then ask him about the frequency of his drug use. If Blake promised to stop smoking marijuana, I would not tell the vice president of human resources about the incident.
4. Invent other options. Discuss.

 Pick one of the four options, why you did not pick the other three?

4.The Cost of Speaking Out against Your Employer

The COVID-19 pandemic put immense stress on the U.S. healthcare system. Some of America's largest cities, such as New York, Chicago, and New Orleans, were hardest hit and faced a lack of supplies and personnel. Kenia Barkai worked at Detroit Medical Center's Sinai-Grace Hospital as a nurse. She first mentioned to hospital management in February 2020 that there was a lack of staffing and protective equipment at the hospital, putting workers and patients at risk. Barkai also told her boss that she was tasked with treating both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. This meant she may inadvertently have spread the virus. Barkai's complaints, however, fell on deaf ears.

Sinai-Grace saw a surge of COVID-19 patients in March 2020, leading to worsening conditions. Barkai continued her complaints, this time telling management she was going to report her work conditions to state regulators. A few days later, the 11-year veteran posted a seven-second video to Facebook. The video showed Barkai putting on gear and saying, "I have my gloves, my hair covering, my mask, my gown and I'm ready to rock and roll. I'm going in," before treating a COVID-19 patient.263 Barkai's post was picked up by local Detroit news and broadcast. The hospital fired her a few days later, citing a violation of their social media policy.

Barkai's firing led Sinai-Grace nurses to organize a sit-in and motivated others to speak up. Physicians and nurses told news outlets horrifying stories of a hospital that looked like a "third world country in a war zone." "We've had patients die in hallway beds because the nurse didn't find they didn't have a pulse until it was too late," said one physician. "Each nurse has so many patients that by the time they come to check on their next one, there is a chance that patient may not have a pulse anymore." Two ER workers said that another patient's breathing tube disconnected from a ventilator and hospital staff were so busy that the patient died before anyone could reconnect it.

A vindicated Barkai filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Sinai-Grace Hospital alleging the hospital retaliated against her for speaking up. "[The hospital] can't retaliate against a nurse whose sole goal was to advise the authorities of inappropriate actions that were jeopardizing patient care," said Jim Rasor, Barkai's attorney. On the other hand, the hospital's social media policy bans posts that interfere with work or "create potential harm to others," such as patients and staff. Posts that release confidential information also are banned.

SOLVING THE CHALLENGE

Assume you were an administrator at Sinai-Grace Hospital when Barkai's video went live. Would you have fired her?

1. No. Barkai did not reveal any confidential information in her video and stated her opinion about the hospital's working conditions on her own personal Facebook feed. She should be reinstated and compensated for wrongful termination.
2. Yes. Barkai's video caused additional harm to a hospital in the middle of a devastating pandemic. She should have followed protocol by placing a complaint with regulators instead of going public.
3. Invent other options.

 Pick one of the four options, why you did not pick the other three?