In a matter of principles in the workplace, often times the law is in favor of productivity rather than morality. Although our countries regulation claims to be based on honorable values there are situations where business economic profit is the objective and ethical ideals fall secondary to that aim. Thus is the case with Nancy Smith and the pharmaceutical company. .
Nancy Smith was as an employee at will, and under that definition an employer has "the right to promote, demote, and fire whomever and whenever they please." Nancy refused to cooperate with her company in the testing of a drug she believed to be harmful. She was not fired, however, she was demoted and chose to resign because she felt she was being unjustly penalized for her ethical convictions. Although Nancy was only demoted, it is my interpretation that she could have actually been fired for her actions. Under the pretences of her employment contract (EAW), the pharmaceutical company has no legal obligation to give a good reason for her dismissal. In recent years, however, similar cases have been taken to court and found in favor of the employee. In California in the past five years, 50% of implied contract cases have ruled in support of the employee. .
Legally, Nancy certainly has the right to sue for reinstatement of her original position as Director of Medical Research Therapeutics, and with the apparent trends in EAW court cases she has an improved chance at winning. Morally, however, I would question her judgment in even wanting her job back. Under John Stuart Mill's "principle of utility" actions are just in their tendency to promote happiness. .
