Business law themes in the film Philadelphia

Philadelphia

The managers at the law firm were confronted by the dilemma regarding Beckett's AIDS. There are two elements to the dilemma. The first is the question of whether Beckett's illness was going to challenge his competency. The second is how they should approach the issue of his AIDS and homosexuality, which seems to have been a problem for some of them. Wheeler has been a valuable asset to the firm, so there is a dilemma related to their desire to fire him and the duty of care that they owe him for his service to the firm.

The managers were not justified in firing Andrew. This is an ethical decision, rather than a legal one. Neither the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nor latter statutes give protection to homosexuals from workplace discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act, however, might cover Beckett. Ethically, however, I believe that a Kantian approach is appropriate, because there is no particular harm that would come to anybody other than Beckett as a result of either choice. The avoidance of doing harm is a good imperative to follow here.

3. That Beckett concealed his illness is important. If he has any protections, they are under the ADA. However, if the firm did not know that he had an illness -- whether that qualifies him under the ADA or not -- then they could easily argue that he was fired for performance or homosexuality. Either one would have been legal. Beckett's illness can only be a defense if he can argue that the firm fired him because of it -- if they did not know about it then that line of argument evaporates.

4. Miller is morally obliged to accept Beckett's case because he is a personal injury lawyer, and because he knows Beckett. Miller has a duty to take on such a case because of what it represents in terms of the law -- the opportunity to break new ground. Miller may also feel a sense of obligation to a fellow lawyer who has not been treated fairly.

5. Miller finally accepts the case in part because of his own guilt. The way he reacted to Beckett's handshake, and the reaction of the people in the library were both influencing factors. Miller is black and probably has experienced that sort of reaction from people at times in his life, and feels guilt over having done that to somebody else. He wants to right this wrong by taking the case.

6. In general, I would not intervene. There are underlying factors that might mean that I was misinterpreting the situation. Additionally, I generally take a non-interventionist approach to things in the external environment. If I decided to intervene, that would likely be if somebody was going to get hurt. It is unconscionable to stand by while somebody is being physically harmed.

7. We are not ethically entitled to interpret the experience of others. We should worry about interpreting our own experience. When we seek to interpret somebody else's experience, we could misinterpret that experience because their interpretation will be informed by their history and their own cognitive and emotional facilities. We are likely to misinterpret as a result.

8. Our interpretation, if we communicate it to others, could alter their perceptions of an experience. For example, somebody might see a negative action against them as being personal while we see it as being racial. The way the story in the movie is told, sexuality and AIDS were factors in Beckett's firing. In truth, he may actually have been a lousy lawyer who lost the papers. When we create a narrative based on our interpretation, we run the risk of influencing how others perceive the experience as well.