Deviant Behavior

Erin Brockovich & Corporate Ethics Deviant Behavior Eric Brockovich, a film released in 2000, is a dramatization of a true story of a woman who became a legal assistant through the sheer force of her personality -- and after discovering evidence that people were being poisoned by toxins from a Pacific Gas and Electricity (PG&E) plant -- nearly single-handedly -- successfully brings a lawsuit against the company ("IMDB," 2011).

The film provides a verstehen, or filtered understanding, of the embittered contest between the injured citizen and a large corporation with deep pockets ("IMDB," 2011). This paper will first briefly summarize the story. An analysis of the position of the prosecuting legal team follows. And finally, discussion will center on corporate deviance according to Glasser's Choice Theory and the relation of Kohlberg's theory of morality. The Story The story takes place in 1993, when following the loss of a personal injury lawsuit, Erin Brockovich asks her attorney, Edward L.

Masry, to help her find a job to compensate for the loss ("IMDB," 2011). The attorney hires Erin as a file clerk, and she earnestly tries to get a handle on the job: Erin is at her desk, staring bewilderingly at the files from the box Ed gave her, which are now spread across her desktop. She sees Anna packing up her things to leave. ERIN Anna? With this real estate stuff -- could you remind me, 'cause I'm a little confused about how exactly we do that.

Why are there medical records and blood samples in real estate files? (Grant, 2000) From this point, Erin begins the investigation (Grant, 2000). She curiously reads the medical files of Donna and Peter Jensen, then later asks Ed if she can investigate further (Grant, 2000). He is distracted and gives her permission without really realizing what he has agreed to (Grant, 2000). It seems that PG&E has offered to purchase the Jensen's house in Hinckley, California, so that is where, true to form, Erin drives next (Grant, 2000).

As Erin digs into the particulars of the case, she becomes convinced that increasingly the facts are adding up (Grant, 2000). She discovers that PG&E has systematically covered up the fact that the water supply in the town of Hinkley has become contaminated by a toxic industrial component called hexavalent chromium (Grant, 2000). Many people are already seriously ill, several have died, and the health of the entire community is at stake (Grant, 2000). Erin finds evidence that PG&E is responsible for the illnesses of the town's inhabitants (Grant, 2000).

Ed fires Erin for being gone for two weeks without telling anyone -- she has been investigating and working around the clock (Grant, 2000). When he gets the lab report Erin requested that details the toxin levels, he hires her back (Grant, 2000). Erin nags and bothers Ed until she convinces Ed until he agrees to mount a case against the energy company (Grant, 2000). ED -- And what the hell do you know about any of this anyway? Something like this, Erin- it could take forever. They're a huge corporation.

They could bury us in paperwork for the next fifteen years. I'm just a guy with a private firm. She makes her move ERIN -- who happens to know they poisoned people and lied about it. We can get these people. With a little effort, I really think we can nail their asses to the wall (Grant, 2000).

Through happenstance, Erin meets a man in a bar who claims that he was supposed to destroy some PG&E documents, but he decided not to do so when he put two and two together (Grant, 2000). He observed that workers who labored in the unlined ponds in Hinkley were being plagued by medical conditions -- his own cousin passed away from a malady caused by the toxins (Grant, 2000).

The lynchpin is a document from 1966 that connects a conversation between a corporate executive in the San Francisco headquarters of PG&E with the Hinkley station (Grant, 2000). The evidence that was examined by a judge -- without the benefit of jury -- and PG&E was ordered to pay a settlement of $333 million to be divided among the 634 plaintiffs (Grant, 2000). David and Goliath. The relationship between Erin and Ed has substantive relevance to the common reaction of society to corporate deviance and issues of morality.

Erin is naive, stubborn, and driven by a clear-cut sense of right and wrong (Grant, 2000). Ed wears the badge of many struggles with powerful entities, and though reluctant to continue bleeding his wealth in Quixotic attempts to get corporations to own up to their corporate social responsibility (Grant, 2000). It is Ed's position that PG&E is counting on -- Ed's experience with protracted legal proceedings acts as a disincentive to pursue PG&E -- and the company will exploit it at every turn (Grant, 2000).

PG&E, however, was not counting on the irrepressible righteousness of Erin Brockovich (Grant, 2000). She is Don Quixote, yes, but she is also David -- and she swings a mean slingshot. Erin is the most difficult opponent they could imagine because she has a "beginner's mind," [footnoteRef:1]and because everything about her will attract attention, leave a lasting impression, and act as stark contrast between the polished and impenetrable facade of a corporate behemoth (Hartman, 2001).

She is every "little man" (or woman) against the callous, greedy, immoral corporation that justifies its actions on the basis its ability to pay big dividend to stockholders (Hartman, 2001). Erin is not the sort of.