Case Study : Kathryn McneilEssay Preview: Case Study : Kathryn McneilReport this essayIntroductionThe case of Kathryn Mc Neil deals with the issue of separation in the workplace regarding the nonperformance of a single mother whose work was suffering because of the tremendous additional burden of raising a child. The case was written in 1994 but in the intervening years significant decisions have been made by the law (in the US) protecting the rights of the single mother. The debate is no longer exclusively about professionalism versus corporate responsibility but the new phenomenon of a third gender in the workplace.
HistoryThe primary figure in the case is Charles Foley, VP of a computer retailing firm Sayer Micro World and the case is to be analyzed through his perspective. Foley, together with his Director Lisa Walters, hired Kathryn McNeil a 37-year-old product manager to run the IBM division. McNeil has been unable to work as many hours as the other product managers due to her status as a single parent of a six-year-old boy. The company was recently acquired and the new management was demanding a quick turnaround resulting in all the employees working 13-14 hour days. Although McNeil appears to be doing her best to fulfill both her parental and professional responsibilities, her immediate supervisor insists that McNeil has not been able to complete her share of the work and Foley must decide whether or not to fire his employee.
Consequently, Microsoft has issued a notice to the public to take all necessary action to protect the sensitive information that was collected pursuant to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 2012, a federal law that was crafted by the Justice Department to prevent fraudulent online payments and other fraud.
A notice of proposed settlement will be delivered to Microsoft within two weeks. This letter will address the nature of the breach. On behalf of Microsoft I have the honor to express my full support for you.
The court previously ruled that, “Microsoft must show cause to believe the integrity of its systems has been compromised, and has breached its own rules and data protection policies, even if the violations are not intentional. And if that is the case, a defendant not only should not have been allowed to pursue his case, it should have had to show the court that it was serious about the integrity of its systems and would have had a strong motivation to harm it during the course of its case. The court has already identified a number of factors that could have prevented the breach of the Microsoft systems, including: (1) insufficient disclosure, (2) insufficient evidence of fraud and breach of security, (3) inadequate security measures, and (4) the extent and significance of the Microsoft systems to hackers, and the extent and urgency with which some elements of the Microsoft systems were compromised.”
In contrast, the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled in Drexel v. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which in 2001 said the Fifth Amendment does not protect government employees due to their government employees’ lack of professional backgrounds and qualifications. A federal magistrate judge ruled the law violated the First Amendment because it was not “consistent with the basic requirements of a private security firm.” However, he found it “clear” that the law was not “sufficiently restrictive” to protect customers who have been “deceptive” or victims of fraud, and the court affirmed the magistrate’s ruling.
The court also found that Microsoft is entitled to a trial at this high level. It also ruled in McNeil that the court has jurisdiction to hear claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which would create a “clear path” for those seeking relief.
The new documents shed light on the scope of the new data management scheme and how it may ultimately go before the court once it has been approved for use and sent back to the government.
Microsoft could use or retain information about you and any other data on your mobile devices under the program called Data Retention and Use Protection Plans. These plans include the provision of information such as your name, email address, account number, and password to the company.
An IBM employee must be authorized to use data on your mobile phone, computer, tablet, or tablet computer system through a plan in place at or after the beginning of a fiscal year that is not otherwise prior to October 1, 2015. The employee may have access to that information as long as the plan is active. If you have more than one plan listed on your account this month, you may include the information in your accounts and you may choose to opt-out of using other than the most active plans, rather than participating in the plans provided by other institutions, but not those linked here.
An
ResponsesThe primary response of Foley was to delay his decision and hope it sorts itself out. He was faced with an ethical dilemma and was one of the few people in the company who could understand McNeils struggle as he was married and had children of his own.
Walters believed in through professionalism or giving preference to the company over a personal life or the bottom line and she cared little about the work-family balance that is a growing issue in the already deteriorated family structures of today.
McNeil was a contentious employee who had proved herself in the past and had gotten positive feedback and commendations from her clients group – IBM. When she was hired, she was not given the entirety of her job requirements and the changing ownership of the company put additional burdens on her job profile.
ProblemMcNeil was not able to perform to expectations due to her family obligations and had to face constant pressure from Walter who together with the rest of the team were proven to be working longer and with better results than McNeil. But due to a lack of awareness, flexibility and certain tolerance measures within the company she was subjected to discrimination and the threat of termination.
This treatment originates from the following:The company neglected to acknowledge McNeils apprehensions at the time of her hiring.The assumption of staying longer in the office reflecting the performance of a person.Interference in McNeils day to day performance by the use or abuse of power.Tarnishing the image of McNeils without her defence.EthicsIn a precedent-setting decision in 2000, the state Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a superior court ruling in Carmichael Vs. Wynn & Wynn noting in the text that “discriminatory animus was a factor in the decision not to hire a pregnant woman.”
This has started a series of litigations by the “third gender” who has, till date, been denied her capacity to chose and function both as pillars of the family and working professionals. The organization has to recognize the role of working mothers in the larger interest of society and make the minimum adjustments of a flexible work schedule and child care facilities or compensation. This, only to the betterment of society and prevent the broader consequences in the future.
The question of termination is justified in this case as there is some effect on McNeils performance and when put on probation, she would have to make the choice between her professional and family life. But McNeil was clearly an above average performer and mentioned her family priorities during her selection process and furthermore, was not given the adequate support by her superiors.
ConclusionsMothers