Impaired Employee and Liability Identify

Impaired Employee and Liability Identify and explain at least three ethical considerations. The first ethical consideration is disclosure. The candidate was completely honest with the hiring committee in admitting that he had the condition. In this light, one might say that the employee was within his ethical obligations to disclose anything that might impact upon his ability to do the work. The second ethical issue is the obligation of the company. The hiring committee needs to ask itself questions relating to the ethical obligations of the company.

Should the company be held ethically responsible for hiring the individual in question because he was sufficiently honest to reveal his condition? This type of honesty could for example be a great asset to the company in the future. A further ethical issue is the drive to investigate further. The company knows only as much about the candidates as they disclosed during the interview sessions and by means of their CVs. The individual who is the first choice was completely honest about his condition.

However, what about the second choice candidate? In order to ensure a completely fair hiring process, investigating the background of the second choice for any honesty issues could help the decision-making process (McNamara, 2010). This could be done according to a completely ethical set of guidelines, such as first disclosing to the individual in question that such an investigation will be launched. Also, the investigation should focus only upon the professional conduct and medical history of the person in question; there should be no investigation into the candidate's personal history. 2.

Identify and explain at least three the legal considerations. The most obvious legal consideration is the obligations that the company has to hire without any discrimination based on disability. The first-choice candidate has no current disability, and might not even develop the condition in question. On this basis, it would be unfair not to hire him, based upon a hypothetical, future occurrence. It would also be illegal based upon the law, as there is no current condition that prevents the individual from performing his work duties.

Second, however, the candidate chose to disclose the condition under the assumption that it might prevent him from performing his work duties in the near future. If the company then has reasonable grounds for believing that the condition could prevent the candidate from performing on the job, then the company is within its rights to hire the second-choice candidate (Seattle Pacific University, 2010).

Third, were the company to hire the employee and the condition does surface, the company would indeed be legally obligated to provide financial and medical assistance, as well as a pension for the employee. The costs related to this are much higher than the cost of relating the second, almost equally excellent, employee. 3. Identify and explain at least three business considerations. The first and most obvious business consideration is the potential cost and risk of hiring each employee.

Obviously, the first-choice candidate poses a significant risk of costs incurred as his career with the company progresses. The costs involved in the medical and pension costs for the candidate could have a significant impact upon the business. The second consideration is the image of the business in terms of the law. Customers today are very sophisticated, and tend to investigate businesses in terms of their fairness and social responsibility.

Were the first-choice candidate to disclose to the news that the business engaged in unfair practices when not hiring, this could have a severely negative impact upon the business and its perception by the public. This could result in significant losses in terms of customers and revenue. The business will have to consider whether this is an acceptable risk when compared to the risk of the first-choice employee becoming unfit for work. The third factor is the law.

Business and the law cannot be separated, as businesses today are required to be completely fair in their hiring practices (Prial, 2010). If the first-choice candidate feels that the company has not been fair, he is within his rights to approach a legal facility to make a claim against them. This can also result in significant costs to the company in terms of legal and settlement costs.

Should the company lose a legal battle, the settlement amount could be significant, or indeed they could be forced to hire the employee, which defeats the decision against him in the first place. 4. Give your decision as the Vice President for Health Services and the rationale for the decision. As the Vice President for Health Services, it is my decision that, on ethical, legal and business grounds the decision against hiring the first-choice employee is unsound. Basing this decision on a hypothetical disability that might not.