LS 312 Unit 2 Assignment

Unit Two Assignment


LS 312

Stakeholders are essentially any party who has an interest in a company that can affect or be affected by the business. There are two different types of stakeholders, those being internal and external. (Chen, 2019) Internal stakeholders are those who have a direct connection with the business, such as investors and employees. An external stakeholder is a bit more difficult to identify, as they do not directly work with the company but can be affected by the business’s decisions. An example of this would be a supplier for a grocery store. Any stakeholder in any company has interest in that business. These interests can range from the owner being interested in making a profit to a customer having interest that they will receive the best value for their money.

The stakeholders in this situation would be Jane, Eddie, Greg, Brad, and all the other employees who work for R&S Electronic Service Company. The biggest of these stakeholders would be Brad who owns the company and has the most to lose in this situation. All these stakeholders are internal, which means their interest revolve around the business, but their interest does vary from person to person. The main interest of Jane, Eddie, and Greg are their employment at the company, which provides financial support for themselves. Brad, on the other hand, his interest is the company itself. While the group of three could possibly find employment elsewhere, if the company was to be punished for Eddie’s actions, Brad would take the biggest hit. And if Brad decided to shut down his operations, the interest of all employees would be harmed.

When discussing this situation from a legal perspective, the Employment-At-Will doctrine must be examined. This doctrine, produced in 1877 by Horace Wood, essentially states that an employee may leave their employment for any reason and that an employer may terminate any employee for any reason. (Pitchford, 2005) Even though Mr. Wood erroneously cited cases that supported his views, this doctrine was adopted by many courts throughout the country. With this doctrine being the standard, it created many situations where employees would be discriminated against or punished, which eventually lead to some exceptions. Some of these exceptions were created through legislation and other were brought forth by case law.

Exceptions created by statue include: the right to unionize, the right not to be discriminated against based age, sex, etc. and laws that protect whistleblowers. The ability to organize a union was granted in 1935, with the Supreme Court stating that an employer could not intimidate their employees with termination if they were trying to unionize. (Halbert, 2015) In the 1960’s, federal law was passed to protect employees from being terminated due to their race, region, etc., which was followed by legislation protecting whistleblowers in the 70’s and 80’s. As for exceptions created by case law, there are two main approaches. The first one, which is only used by a handful of states, is that the employer implied a promise of “good faith and fair dealings.” Basically, this means that if the employer tells the employee that they are there for employment for indefinite amount of time. The second of these are if the employer sets contractual terms in the employee handbook or policy statement. An example of this would be if the employee handbook clearly stated the no employee shall be terminated without good cause.

To fully analyze this situation legally, it would need to be known which state this business is in. This is because, while all states are employment at will, some states have different laws that would apply to this situation. For example, if this was to occur in the state of Georgia, which does not recognize case law exemptions for employment at will, Jane could be fired for anything. On the other hand, if the business was in Alabama, which recognizes the good faith exception, Jane could not be fired without a good cause. Since there are varying laws across the nation, it would be advisable to anyone seeking employment to check out the laws in their state.

The decision maker in this situation should use the moral theory of deontology. Under this theory, one must make decisions based on their morals, rather than what the consequences of their choices would be. (Halbert, 2015) There are many reasons why this theory should be used, including: it would show that all employees are valued, that the business has moral standards, and that there are ramifications for not upholding these morals. The decision making in this situation would ultimately fall on Brad’s shoulders because he is the owner of the business. If he was to use this ethical theory, he decisions would be based on his own morals.

Creating a workplace environment that is based on morals helps show all the employees that they are valued, which in return could lead to a happier, more productive workforce. Also, with the employees knowing that there are moral standards to be upheld, they would be more comfortable coming forth with any issues that they may have. Having a business that has moral standards is great for the employees but also great for the business in the public’s eyes. This is essential to the success of any business because without customers, there would be no business. Those businesses that do not focus on morals usually tend to fail because there is no guarantee that they will be fair in their dealings. If employees, like in this situation with Jane, do not uphold these morals, it is important that they know they could face consequences. While this theory does not particularly focus on consequences, it ensures that morals must be kept intact. When using this theory, Brad must make a decision, not based on the consequences for Eddie and Greg, but rather on his own morals. This could be a tough situation for Brad, but if he does not uphold his morals then his company could be at risk.


Chen, J. (2018) Stakeholder. Retrieved from

Pitchford, K. G. (2005) An Examination of the At-Will Employment Doctrine. Retrieved from

Halbert, T., Ingulli E. (2015) Law & Ethics in the Business Environment. Retrieved from!/4/2@0:0