Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Should Kroger Pay Now For What Ralph's Employee Did Then?

No description
by

miqdad abdul walad

on 29 March 2016

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Should Kroger Pay Now For What Ralph's Employee Did Then?

SHOULD KROGER PAY NOW FOR WHAT RALPH'S EMPLOYEE DID IN THE PAST?
Scenario 3:
Scenario 2:
Thank you for listening.
The Kroger Company acquired the Ralphs Grocery chain in 1998. The company had a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment. However, in April 2002, the company would have to pay compensatory and punitive damages totaling $30 million, the second largest sexual harassment verdict in the history of the US, for the actions of Roger Misiolek, a Ralphs store manager accused of harassing six female employees at a Ralphs supermarket, during 1995 and 1996.
Justification 3:
Ethically Kroger should not pay at all because the incident occurred before Kroger even owned Ralphs but actually it depends on the acquisition contract between Kroger with Fred Meyer and Fred Meyer with Ralphs. However, why would Kroger do not fire Roger right after they acquired the company. They let Roger worked for 14 months. Therefore, Kroger have to pay the fine. It is because Kroger itself has broke their policies of zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment (1980).
Justification 4:
All complaints must thoroughly investigate and must have proper corrective actions. In order to prevent the occurrence of similar scenarios in the future, there is dire need to formulate a clear-cut procedure for dealing with these kinds of issues. Companies must also strictly adhere to the various provisions of human rights and integrity of employees.

Ralphs allowed Misiolek to continue managing store because of his capability to achieve profits at the stores that he manage and of achieving excellent bottom line figures at those stores.
Group Members
Scenario 4:
1. What can a company do to make sure that a situation like Misiolek’s does not occur?
2. Why do you think Ralphs allowed Misiolek to continue managing stores?
Summary
Scenario 1:
The judge is not right that the company as a whole should not be held responsible for his actions. Any company should be held responsible for their actions including Ralphs. According to what I’ve learned, corporate organizations are morally responsible for their actions and that their actions are moral or immoral in exactly the same sense that human beings are. Hence, Ralphs are morally responsible for their actions assumed that the complaints did not reach Ralphs’s headquarters in Compton or not.
Ralphs Grocery should be held responsible because their management did not facilitate feedback, complaints from employee to headquarter. The most important thing that should be underlined is in April 1996 several women already complained to Ralphs management but the company did not take any disciplinary action toward Misiolek. Misiolek did not remove from his position as store manager, but instead moved the complaining women to other stores.
The penalty should be compensatory and punitive damages. It would be such a good idea based on compensatory justice principal.
The penalty should be compensatory and punitive damages. It would be such a good idea based on compensatory justice principal. In my point of view, it is actually depending on how much the cost to rehabilitate the victims and how much the victims
were aggrieved. $33.3 million penalty was excessive because the psychological impact for some employees was not seriously same. Except for those who were grabbed, touched, patted, hugged, touched their breasts should give much more than
rehabilitation cost.
1. Assuming that the store and district managers of Ralphs received complaints about Misiolek's behavior starting in 1985, but that these complaints did not reach Ralphs's headquarters in Compton, do you believe that the judge is right in holding that the company as a whole should not be held responsible for his actions?
2. Should the company be held responsible for policies that prevent complaints from reaching headquarters?
1. What kind of penalty do you believe would be appropriate for Ralphs?
2. In your view, was the $33.3 million penalty excessive? Was the final 2006 judgement fair?
Should Kroger have to pay for events that happened before it took over the chain of
supermarkets?
Do you agree with our justification?
Any question?

1995-1996: Roger Misiolek, a Ralph’s store manager accused of harassing six female employees at a Ralphs supermarket in Escondido California.
1998: The jury awarded the six woman $550,000 in compensatory damages and $3.325 million in punitive damages. California Judge, who presided over the trial, discovered that one of the jurors was a shareholder of Ralphs Grocery Company. Ralphs asked that the case be retried and 6 women and their lawyers would have to return to court to retry the penalty phase of the trial. 14 months after Kroger acquired Ralphs, the company finally suspended Misiolek.

Justification 1:
Justification 2:
UK30729 CHUA SIANG CUI
UK30950 ABDUL RAHMAN BIN MOHAMMAD UK30966 MUHAMAD AZHARI BIN YUSARI
UK31392 MUHAMAD SUFI BIN ASNI
UK31740 FATIN AMIRAH BINTI SUHAINI
UK32002 MIQDAD BIN ABDUL WALAD
UK32790 AINUN KHAIRIYAH BINTI KHAIRUDDIN
UK33069 SYED NADZUAN BIN SAYED JAAFAR
Problem Chronological
Basic Theory
Discrimination:
The wrongful act of distinguishing illicitly among people not on the basis of individual merit, but on the basis of prejudice or some other invidious or morally reprehensible attitude.
Affirmative action program:
A program designed to ensure the proportion of minorities within an organization matches their proportion in the available workforce.
Utilitarian arguments:
Inefficient use of HR, should basis of competency or merit.

Rights arguments:
Violates basic human rights, each individual has a moral right to be treated as a free person equal to any other person.

Justice arguments:
Violates the basic principle of justice by differentiating between people on the basis of characteristics (race or sex) that are not relevant to the tasks they must perform.
Arguments against Discrimination
Conclusion
Judge should not only penalize the Kroger with money penalty but judge have to give a strict sanction by non activate the store (Ralph).

Provide a training for manager and employee about managing diversity.
Full transcript