Law and justice in the Paul Cronan AIDS discrimination case

Law vs. Justice

Justice is defined (Dictionary.com 2005) as conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude, the upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward. Law, on the other hand, is a body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community, the condition of social order and justice, created by adherence to a fixed legal system. Justice is an abstract and subjective concept, individualized by experience and circumstances (Harvard Business School 2005), and reflects differing values within a society. The concept of justice is based on a person's viewpoint, prejudice or social affiliation (Oliver Wendell Holmes). But for the proper functioning and stability of a society, a set of agreed rules called law must be observed.

Law is founded on the natural law and positive law (Harvard Business School 2005). Natural law deals with the doing of good and avoidance of evil, in keeping promises, telling the truth, compensating for injuries. Its standards are fairness and justice. Positive law is the set of rules agreed upon by the authority. It derives from common legal heritage, the court system and decisions, executive decrees and orders, legislative rules and laws and resolutions issued by the bureaucracy. It focuses more on order and stability and less on fairness and justice. However, natural law and positive law sometimes come in conflict, as in the issues of slavery, ownership of property, voting restrictions and racial segregation. Justice and law both aim at order and stability in society and the promotion of the highest welfare of the individuals in that society.

Case # 1 Paul Cronan vs. New England Telephone Company

The NET Company believed that its problem is to balance company interests and responsibilities with the rights and needs of all of its employees in dealing with the situation of Paul Cronan, a company technician diagnosed with AIDS (Myers 1991). Paul was the first person with the sickness to win his job back through legal action. The Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts helped him file a $1.4 million civil lawsuit against NET for violating state privacy law in revealing Paul's sickness and illegally discriminating against him. It asserted that AIDS is a handicap, covered by statutes (or laws) prohibiting discrimination against the disabled. It charged that NET created a climate of suspicion and hostility that made his return to work impossible and failed to make the necessary accommodations for his return to work. On the whole, Paul, through the Union, accused NET of effectively but illegally dismissing him and discriminating against him solely of the ground of a physical disability. NET denied any illegality and claimed that Paul voluntarily revealed his condition and never responded to its offer to return or attempted to be reinstated. It claimed that Paul did not suffer from a handicap, that it did not commit serious invasion of privacy of Paul's condition and that the privacy law did not protect Paul's revelation of his secret.

Fearing the outcome of two lost preliminary legal battles and a trial, NET officials sought an amicable agreement with Paul, after ascertaining that he was capable of returning to work. He was re-assigned to another facility while NET held an AIDS-education information meeting between the workers and two medical AIDS doctors. These doctors assured the workers that Paul was not a health risk to them because AIDS is transmissible only through intimate contact. When Paul returned for work, he was avoided and treated with humiliation. Despite the training they had on the unlikelihood of contracting AIDS by casual contact, 29 out of 39 employees walked out to protest his return. They expressed discomfort and fear being around him for what his condition could cause them and their families. They were not content with what doctors said, since much about AIDS is still unknown and it did not seem right for someone with a strange disease to be walking around and working with them. NET's written AIDS policy allowed employees like Paul who were not disabled to return for work.

The privacy law did not apply to the case of Paul's condition, which was more than a question of physical ability or disability. AIDS is still largely a strange, incurable and fatal disease and it is neither enough nor fair to merely assure workers that it is transmissible only by intimate contact and expect them to ignore its impact on them. His supervisor, Mr. O'Brian, may not have kept his word but justice rightly impelled him to divulge Paul's secret for the good of the majority. Whatever individual rights Paul had must be subjected to those of the greatest number, which are superior to those of Paul. The harm that his sickness could bring on his co-employees and their families outweighed those of Paul. This case follows the philosophy of Oliver Wendell Holmes, who argued that the law must be carried out for society to function. But the philosophy that should apply in Paul's case should be the greatest good for the greatest number. In serving the greatest good of the greatest number, Paul's private rights must be sacrificed. The philosophy of William Lloyd Garrison should instead apply, whereby justice should be the sole basis or source of the law. Whatever laws were used to protect Paul's reinstatement should be altered to underscore the moral obligation of the NET to protect other employees from the condition of Paul and Paul's own moral obligation to consider the welfare of his co-employees and choose to leave the company. The natural law applies the rules to all persons equally, but the situation in Paul's and NET's cases is not equal. Paul contracted the disease through his own fault, but his co-employees had no such culpability.

Case # 3 Ashland Oil, Inc.: Trouble at Floreffe

Ashland Oil, Inc. was the 60th largest company in the U.S. And the U.S.' largest independent oil refiner, which employed more than 42,000 people worldwide and had a refining capacity of 346,000 barrels of oil daily (Delehunt 1990). It produced a range of petroleum products sold to resellers and consumers in the East, South and Upper Midwest and ran SuperAmerica, a chain of more than 450 combined gasoline and convenience stores. But as it rapidly grew and diversified, it also tarnished its public image. It was reprimanded and fined by the Securities and Exchange Commission for illegal political contributions and for rigging construction bids in the Southeast. It also made questionable payments to Middle Eastern middlemen and the Belzberg family that took over it was later on charged with violations to federal disclosure laws. Most importantly, the company's 4-million-gallon storage tank at the Floreffe terminal outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania collapsed while being filled on January 2, 1988 and released a 3.9-million-gallon spill into the surrounding properties. In the evening, close to 3 quarters of a million gallons of oil had spilled into the Monongahela River and threatened the water supply of communities in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. The chairman of the board of the Company knew he had a major environmental problem before him. When the newspaper began to cover the event, it was discovered that the firm had no permit or a request for a permit for the tank, the collapsed tank had not been properly tested and that it was newly constructed but was rebuilt from 40-year-old steel. The spill also deprived 15,000 residents of Pittsburgh of water supply so that water rationing had to be done by the authorities. Ashland officials and their lawyers were ferreting out their responses to the press in the hope of preventing legal consequences.

Ashland may have economically benefited the country with its products and its employees with jobs, but Ashland's public records and the far-reaching effects of this oil spill on the communities and the environment due to neglect could negate the gains. The company violated many public laws while benefiting the country. William Lloyd Garrison's and Oliver Wendell Holmes' philosophies apply: "that which is not just is not law" and "the law must be carried out for society to function." The company's public violations for illegal political contributions, for rigging construction bids, for operating the tank without a permit and using reconstructed tanks from used steel. The law must be carried out against the violations of Ashland. Filtering and refining responses to the press on its awful responsibility over the disastrous oil spill of January 2, 1988 in avoiding the legal consequences of its neglect outrage all sense of justice and violate all laws meant to protect human life and the environment.