ENGR 482 Lecture 18

« previous | Monday, October 28, 2013 | next »

Engineers as Employees

Obligations:

• Career and family
• Employer
• Personal Integrity
• Public

In ethical dilemma,

• Talk to someone
• "Dust off résumé"
• Professional society
• Texas Board of Engineers

Protection under common law

• Traditional (Doctrine of Employment at Will): In absence of contract, employer may fire or employee may quit for any reason.
• Public policy exception interpreted narrowly by courts, protecting such activities as:
  • employee's refusal to break law
  • performing important public obligation (such as jury duty)
  • execising clear legal right (free speech)
  • protecting public from clear threat to health or safety
• Protection of employees from violation of their conscience is not generally upheld (Illinois Right of Conscience Act, 1985 is exception)
• Protection of employees when there is a mere difference in judgement with employer not generally upheld
• Note: Codes of professional (private) societies do not have as much standing in court as the codes of state regulatory boards.

Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical

(1980)

Treatment for diarrhea believed to have too much saccharin, a suspected carcinogen.

Objected, Ortho Pharm. moved her to back office; she ultimately resigned and went to court.

Court upheld traditional doctrine of employment at will and resigned too early; so she did not win the case.

Kickstarted inclusion of "common law" clause:

In certain instances, a professional code of ethics may contain an expression of public policy. However, not all such sources exprsess a clear mandate of public polic. For example, a code of ethics designed to serve only the interest of the profession . . . probably would not be sufficient. . . . Employees who are professionals owe a special duty to abide not only by federal and state law, but also by the recognized codes of ethics of their profession. That duty may oblige them to decline to perform acts required by their employers.

Rocky Mtn. Hospital et al. and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Colorado v. Diana Mariani

(1996; Colorado)

Tort claim against Diana's employer (BCBS) for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. She was fired for refusing to violate Rule 7.3 of the Colorado State Board of Accountancy, which prohibits a certificate holder from knowingly misrepresenting facts or subordinating their judgement to others.

Court ruled in favor because

• "other jurisdictions have recognized ethical codes as a potential source of public policy" (Pierce)
• she waited until she was fired

Exemption from "employment at will: "Public policy must:

1. concern behavior that truly impacts the public
2. Clearly discernable [specific as opposed to broad]

Martin Marietta v. Paul Lorenz

(1992; Colorado)

Lorenz, mechanical engineer, claimed wrongful discharge because of his foilure to engage in acts of deception and misrepresentation concerning the quality of materials used by Martin Marietta in designing equipment for NASA.

Asked to modify minutes of a technical review meeting, but he refused.

He was laid off on July 25, 1975 and kept fighting persistently

Lower courts rejected claim because of employment at will.

Federal law prohibits falce representation to a fedeal agency.

[courts] concluded that Lorenz did not present sufficient evidence at trial to establish a prima facie case for wrongful dischange under the public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.

Court directed new trial in accordance with the principles here in established

Whistle Blowing

Morally permissible or obligatory criteria