Reference no: EM13843787
Martha Roosevelt has concerns regarding her position with Crosby and Hope Investment Bank (CHIB) ever since she was transferred to the Madlostika branch office from New York last year. Martha has both a B.S. and an M.B.A. in finance, graduated with honors for both degrees, speaks Spanish and French; and has worked for CHIB for the past 7 years, always receiving an Exceptional annual performance evaluation and several promotions. She viewed the transfer to Madlostika as the latest step in her rapid rise. However, since starting at the branch office her supervisor, Miles Abnernathy, has consistently treated her in a condescending, sexist manner in front of Madlostika clients, and identified her as his assistant. Miles never treated her in this manner, however, when only Americans were present. Miles informed Martha that this was necessary as many of the clients do not accept women in positions of authority, and that it was a "cultural thing." However, he assured Martha that he has tremendous respect for her and her abilities. Nevertheless, Martha is not happy with this treatment, nor the type of treatment she observed other female employees at the branch office have received during her tenure at the office. Knowing that CHIB has an extensive anti-discrimination policy to include on the basis of gender, she decided to voice her complaints to CHIB's chief executive officer, Randall Parker, when he visited the office recently. Mr. Parker's response was that they had to deal with certain "realities," urged her to see it through, and not "rock-the-boat" as the Mexican branch office was one of their most profitable.
Do you believe CHIB has taken the proper course of action in apparently adopting the purported norms of the host country? Does it make any difference that such action is not permitted in their home country, and is apparently in violation of the company's own anti-discrimination policy?
Your initial response is due at the end of the day on Thursday. Remember to comment on two other students post by the end of Sunday.
Learning Activity
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) makes it unlawful for a U.S. person, and certain foreign issuers of securities, to make a payment to a foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person. The meaning of foreign official is broad. For example, an owner of a bank who is also the minister of finance would count as a foreign official according to the U.S. government. Doctors at government-owned or managed hospitals are also considered to be foreign officials under the FCPA, as is anyone working for a government-owned or managed institution or enterprise. Employees of international organizations such as the United Nations are also considered to be foreign officials under the FCPA. There is no materiality to this act, making it illegal to offer anything of value as a bribe, including cash or non-cash items. The government focuses on the intent of the bribery rather than on the amount.
The FCPA, however, draws a distinction between bribery and facilitation or "grease payments", which may be permissible under the FCPA but may still violate local laws. The primary distinction is that grease payments are made to an official to expedite his performance of the duties he is already bound to perform. Payments to foreign officials may be legal under the FCPA if the payments are permitted under the written laws of the host country. Certain payments or reimbursements relating to product promotion may also be permitted under the FCPA.
Do you agree with this exception? Why or why not? As part of your response, discuss whether such practice is legal in the United States.