BUSN623 LEGAL & ETHICAL ISSUES IN MANAGEMENT

Course objectives:

All COs are relevant and apply to this Assignment in the choice and analysis of your selected case study. Keep in mind the following COs in particular in the preparation of the project:

CO-1 Assess the legal environment of business.

CO-2 Explain how ethical frameworks shape business decisions.

CO-10 Assess laws applying to antitrust and consumer protection.

Assignment Prompt:

Review the following case studies involving companies’ decision making (hyperlinked to source information).

Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation and its Successors — Love Canal Disaster

(1953)

*Start with the research source provided. You must conduct more research about the company, its decision, the law, ethics, and issues in the case study for your presentation. Initial material is provided to you to get you started. Focus on the specific pivotal decision the company made.When you have selected your case study, research and cover the points listed in the instructions below in a well-developed PowerPoint presentation. These instructions provide guidance about how to organize the slides and the minimum number of slides for the required content. Key points are to be presented on slides with explanation and analysis expanded in your Speaker’s Notes narrative.

INSTRUCTIONS: (Also see Grading Rubric.)

This 12-slide outline is the minimum; you might wish to use additional slides for some segments of the presentation for a complete presentation.

The outline identifies how to organize the content areas of your presentation. You will see that the Grading Rubric follows this outline.

Each slide should display key bullet points supplemented with Speaker’s Notes in the speaker’s note space below the slide or as an audio or video narrative.

Slide 1 – Title Slide (title of topic/presentation, your name, course, prof., date)

Slide 2 – Agenda slide – Simple outline of the presentation so your audience knows the topic scope and where you are going.

Slide 3 – at least one slide – (An introduction of the company) Introduce and briefly describe the company, the nature of its business and corporate business environment. Do not spend a lot of time on the history of the company as a business, but do describe necessary history sufficiently to create meaningful context. For some of these case studies, history will have significance.Slides 4 & 5 –  at least 2 slides: explain facts of the case study; identify the decisional dilemma and succinctly state the 2 choices the company had at the critical point in time; the choice the company made and why; the choice the company should and could have made instead (and why). Tip: There is always a choice. Refer to definition of dilemma:

A problem in the decision-making process between two possible but undesirable options from an ethical perspective.

Slides 6 & 7 –  at least 2 slides: Identify and explain the statutes and regulations implicated and violated  – or potentially violated – by the company’s conduct. Be specific, and explain:•    the purpose of the law; and •    how the company’s conduct violated or might have violated the law, and the consequences of violationSlides 8 & 9 –  at least 2 slides:  Explain the ethical question/failure of the company’s decision, apart from violation of law. Present an analysis and explanation of an ethical course of conduct and reasoning that the company leadership could have followed  to reach the better decision you  identified above, to both follow the law and meet the higher goals of the company. Include in your explanation the definition and application of at least one specific ethical frameworkwe have studied  that would have led to the better decision. (Examples: ethics of care, deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, etc.)  It is NOT sufficient to simply say “exercise CSR” or “do the right thing.”) Analytically apply a specific framework.

Slide 10 – at least 1 slide: Recommend a take-away lesson for the business management of ANY company (not just this company in this situation) that is a lesson to be learned from this case study. What is a recommended business practice? Do not overly generalize.  Be specific.

Slide 11 – at least 1 slide: Conclusion – your wrap-up—3 bullet points summation of case study relevancy; law/ethics; recommendation. As with other slides, expand narrative in Speaker’s Notes.

Slide 12 – at least 1 slide: References slide – References are listed on the Slide, not only in the Speaker’s Notes

Minimum five (5) credible sources that support your material in the PPT. These should also be cited in the PPT Speaker’s Notes to support your narrative, in APA short form. If you are giving an audio presentation, you can include a source by saying something like, “An article by ___________ in ____________ explains how the ethic of care supports successful management decisions.” Also include where necessary on your slides. Timeline: Love Canal Hazardous Waste Disaster
1892
William T. Love proposed construction of a manmade canal that would ultimately link the Niagara
River to Lake Ontario, providing water and hydroelectric power for the model industrial city.
1942
Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation began dumping chemical wastes at the Love Canal, and
by 1952 had dumped nearly 22,000 tons of chemical waste into the canal.
1953
Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation sold the Love Canal property (approximately 15 acres)
for $1.00 to the Board of Education of Niagara Falls with a deed disclaimer of responsibility for any
future damages due to the presence of buried chemicals.
1955
Board of Education of Niagara Falls completed construction on and opened the 99th Street
Elementary School and sold unused sections of the Love Canal property to home developers to build
residences.
1976–1977
The Niagara Gazette (and reporter Michael H. Brown) in a series of articles reported that chemical
residues from the Love Canal landfill between 97th and 99th Streets have been seeping into the
basements of homes in the area. These reports cited illnesses and injuries to residents and pets and
destruction of plant life. The newspaper urged prompt government action.
1978
New York State Health Commissioner (Dr. Robert Whalen) began health studies of the Love Canal
community (house-to-house collecting of blood samples, levels of toxic vapors, and medical exams
and studies of residents) that subsequently confirmed that a serious public health hazard existed. New
York Health Department officials met with Love Canal residents and explained the hazards of
exposure to toxic chemicals in and around homes. The United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) from its tests confirmed the existence of toxic vapors in home basements as a serious
health threat to the Love Canal community.
In June, United States Pentagon officials denied any knowledge of records pertaining to possible
disposal of US Army wastes at Love Canal.
In August, the New York State Health Commissioner declared a “State of Emergency at Love Canal”
and ordered the closing of the 99th Street Elementary School and the evacuation and relocation of
pregnant women and children under age two.
In August, President Jimmy Carter declared a “Federal State of Emergency” at Love Canal and
provided funds ($10 million dollars) to permanently relocate the 239 families that lived in the first
© 2014 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
www.gilderlehrman.org
2
two rows of homes that encircled the Love Canal landfill site. The remaining residents who lived in
the ten-block area were told that they were not at risk. These residents vehemently protested their
exclusion from relocation.
1979
In January, a study by a cancer researcher, Dr. Beverly Paigen, revealed a high rate of birth defects
and miscarriages among Love Canal families and recommended evacuation of more residents.
In February, a second evacuation order was issued by the New York State Health Department of 30
families with pregnant women and children under age two who lived in the ten-block area (between
97th and 103rd Streets) outside of the first evacuation zone of 239 homes.
In March, United States Senate and House of Representatives sub-committees convened hearings
into the Love Canal environmental disaster.
In April, the US Environmental Protection Agency provided $4 million dollars for remedial clean-up
work at the Love Canal, and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration provided $1 million
dollars in debt assistance to the city of Niagara Falls. In June, the New York State Legislature
extended property exemptions, retroactive to 1978, to more than 300 families in the area of Love
Canal.
In September, the New York State Health Department temporarily relocated 300 additional families
who lived in the ten-block area because they began to experience health problems during the cleanup projects due to exposure to harmful chemicals.
By October, more than 800 lawsuits for punitive and compensatory damages have been filed against
the Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation, Niagara County, the city of Niagara Falls, and the
Board of Education of Niagara Falls.
In December, the United States Department of Justice filed a $124 million dollar lawsuit against the
Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation and its parent company, Occidental Chemical
Corporation.
1980
In April, New York State filed a $635 million dollar lawsuit against the Hooker Chemical and
Plastics Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation, and the Occidental Petroleum Corporation,
which claimed that they were responsible for the Love Canal environmental disaster.
In May, the EPA announced that blood-test results of Love Canal community revealed chromosome
damage and a proclivity for cancers among a sampling of area residents. Angry Love Canal residents,
led by Ms. Lois Gibbs, president of the Love Canal Homeowners Association, “detained” two EPA
representatives for six hours and demanded that the federal government relocate all (approximately
900) families in the Love Canal neighborhoods. Within two days, the federal government agreed to
this temporary relocation until funding became available for permanent housing.
In October, President Carter declared a “Second Federal State of Emergency” in the Love Canal area,
and he traveled to Niagara Falls and signed a bill enacted by Congress, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as the
“Superfund” Act, which gave the federal government authority (through the EPA) to clean up
© 2014 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
www.gilderlehrman.org
3
hazardous-waste sites (and then seek redress for the clean-up costs from the responsible parties) and
provided support from a special trust fund to address environmental issues and clean up hazardouswaste sites, including the permanent relocation of all Love Canal residents.
1983
New York Supreme Court announced a $20 million dollar settlement in favor of former and current
Love Canal residents (about 1,330 families) with Occidental Chemical Corporation, a subsidiary of
Occidental Petroleum, and the establishment of a $1 million dollar medical trust fund for the
residents.
1984
The EPA and Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation reached a settlement on remediation of the
Love Canal landfill and protection of drinking water from endangerment in the City of Niagara Falls.
The agreement required Hooker to establish and execute detailed scientific protocols, engineering
designs, construction plans, and quality-control procedures for containment, maintenance,
monitoring, environmental health and safety of the Love Canal landfill and the city’s drinking water.
A thick plastic liner, new clay “cap,” top soil, and high barbed-wire fence were installed over the
most toxic (seven-acre) area of the Love Canal landfill.
1988
The New York State Health Department completed a five-year “Habitability Study” and concluded
that areas and sections of the Love Canal site (beyond the barbed-wire fence) were “as habitable as
other areas of Niagara Falls.” A public organization, the Love Canal Revitalization Agency, rebuilt
homes and renamed the area Black Creek Village. Nearly all of these renovated homes were
privately sold during the 1990s. Some environmental groups and scientists have questioned and
criticized this “Habitability Study.”
1994
Occidental Chemical Corporation and Occidental Petroleum agree to a settlement of $98 million
dollars to reimburse New York State’s clean-up costs of the Love Canal landfill site.
1995
Occidental Chemical Corporation and Occidental Petroleum agree to a settlement of $129 million
dollars to reimburse the federal government’s clean-up costs of the Love Canal landfill site.
2004
The EPA announced that the major clean-up objectives had been achieved and the Love Canal
landfill was removed from its Superfund list as a hazardous toxic-chemical site although some
sections are still quarantined from public access and usage by a barbed-wire fence as a reminder of
the Love Canal’s landmark legacy as the first hazardous waste disposal incident of national
significance, for it was not confined to the workplace but “hit people where they lived.”
© 2014 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
www.gilderlehrman.org