Mary’s response to this incident should depend on the official ramifications of the case. The primary question to resolve is whether the case revolves around ethical issues or whether or not it has legal implications. Mary will successfully go through the proper channels if she comes to the proper conclusion. Let’s take a closer look at this case.
Human resources personnel and all levels of management in most corporations are trained to identify incidents of unethical behavior. Attempting to date someone at work can be considered unethical. Unwanted advances for personal attention can also be unethical. But when the advances become sexual in nature the incident becomes a legal case. While sexual harassment can be considered illegal such determination are subject to corporate policies and the judgments of the individuals involved.
When it Becomes a non-subjective Legal Issue
Sexual misconduct can fall into three categories: inappropriate behavior, unwanted advance, and finally assault leading to rape. Sexual assault comprises of unwanted or uninvited touching of any “questionable area.” This is no longer an issue of personal ethics and company policy.
Mary’s Options
Well, for one, “options” may be the wrong word. It co notates that Mary has a number of choices and resources at her own disposal. Mary has a total of two choices: press charges or face charges as an accomplice. This is not the time to file a harassment suit. She must contact the police and advise her nurse to press charges.
Wrong decisions that have made in the past can damage one’s perspective on how he or she should react to horrible incidents such as this one. Wrong decisions would be to continue the operation, ignore the incident as money is being made and precious blood is being collected, or go through the corporate chain of command.
In light of Joe’s response, Mary has to order him to keep the donor on the premises until the police force arrives. She has to have the would-be donor detained. She must also understand that he is not under obligation to stay put; only the police of the authority to detain someone. In the case that he flees the premises a description must be given when authorities arrive and the matter must be turned over to the police.
Mary’s should be getting a statement from Peggy to hand over to police and to keep for company records. She’s not a legal advisor and can’t officially advise her to do anything but must help Peggy to wade through being a victim of sexual assault. As Peggy’s manager, Mary is the official on the scene and is responsible for carrying any company policies in such a case.
Mary is also a witness to a crime. As one present at the scene she may need to appear in court. She is also obligated to remain on the premises until such time as the police arrive. She will have to give a report on the incident.
Joe Was Wrong: Why?
Although his actions were commendable on the surface he could actually be accused of being an accomplice to sexual assault. He actually aided his top manager in escaping before authorities could arrive on the scene. Joe was wrong. His responsibility, as another official would be to contact the police and inform the employee that he would have to stay and speak to the authorities. Again, the “donor” is not obligated to stay because he hasn’t been place under arrest. There is a “citizen’s arrest” but recent events of wide-acclaim have proven that to be more risky than it’s worth.
Joe was supposed to remove the “donor” and keep him an isolated area. Hopefully the company doesn’t have frequently-used room for such incidents. The best he can do for Peggy is to ask of her well being (IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER) and turn her over to Mary.
What, then, Should Mary Do?
After the “donor” was “chased” away from the premises she, as the person responsible for Peggy, must inform the donating corporation that she must file charges against them. Although Peggy must file charges for actions against her person, Mary has to take an official approach to hold the accused corporation accountable. Because the “chase” involved one of the company’s employees then the accusation of aiding an illegal act would fall on the company as a whole.
As for the rare blood; there’s no way that it can be used as evidence in such a case. If the donor had already signed his consent for the release of his blood before he was “chased” away then Mary has the choice of doing with it what she chooses. She has the ethical burden of discarding it or using it to save someone’s life. She might want to double check on whether or not it would be admitted as evidence in a case. If so she might want to find out if she could use it after the case was closed.
