Cronan Case

Cronan Case Analysis

Legal Analysis

The legal issues in the Cronan case are primarily centered on job discrimination. For employment discrimination to be present, three basic elements must be involved. First, it is a decision against one or more employees that is not based on individual merit, such as the ability to perform the job. This element presumably has been satisfied in the Cronan case as no evidence was presented indicating that Cronan was unable to perform his job. Second, the decision derives solely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, false stereotypes, or some other kind of morally unjustified attitude against members of the class to which the employee belongs. This element is also present in the Cronan case as was indicated by the fact that prior to Cronan being diagnosed with AIDS (and the subsequent dissemination of the information to the remainder of the workforce) there had been no indication of hostilities toward Cronan. Third, the decision (or set of decisions) has a harmful or negative impact on the interests of the employees, perhaps costing jobs, promotions, or better pay. This also was clearly portrayed in the Cronan case as was demonstrated by Cronan's fear to return to the South Boston facility due to the hostilities and New England Telephone Company (NET) initial lack of accommodation for his transfer request. This laid a strong foundation for legal action to be taken based on employee discrimination laws.

NET said that Cronan voluntarily disclosed the AIDS condition and further claimed that Cronan never responded to its offer to return nor made any attempts to be reinstated. The provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not applicable to the Cronan case. The major purposes of the Title VII provisions are to eliminate job discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The provisions of Title VII apply to employers with 15 or more employees. They also cover labor unions, employment agencies, and various other entities.

Cronan could show that a hostile work environment was present (e.g. derogatory pictures, graffiti, etc.). In 1986 the Supreme Court in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson ruled that Title VII prohibits "an offensive or hostile working environment," even when no economic loss occurs. By ruling so, the Court acknowledged that the work environment itself is a condition of employment. The Supreme Court again addressed the hostile work environment issue in 1993. Specifically, the Court was asked to determine whether a hostile work environment had to "seriously affect [his or her] psychological well being" or "cause injury." In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. the Court ruled that illegal sexual harassment goes beyond that which causes "injury." Illegal sexual harassment includes any harassment reasonably perceived as "hostile and abusive."

Finally, on the subject of sexual harassment, the Supreme Court confronted the issue of harassment of an employee by other employees of the same sex. The Court ruled in 1998 in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII. It appears that NET has allowed a hostile sexual driven environment to exist. In addition the Union appears to be allowing the membership to discriminate against Cronan (refusing to be inside same room).

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not applicable to the Cronan case since it (the Act) only deals with racial issues and does not cover discrimination based on sex, religion, national origin, age, or handicap. Since there is no evidence of any racial discrimination in the Cronan case, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 would not be applied.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 would have been applicable to the Cronan case if it had been passed before 1985. The major provisions of the ADA prohibit discrimination against the disabled. Under the ADA disability is defined as "any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of an individual's major life activities." "Major life activities" include the ability to perform manual tasks, walk, see, hear, speak, learn, breathe, care for oneself, or work. People with AIDS are covered by the ADA. The ADA prohibits employers of fifteen or more employees (ADA is also applicable to labor unions with 15 or more employees) from discriminating against the qualified disabled with respect to hiring, advancement, termination, compensation, training, or other terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Qualified disabled are defined as those with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of a particular job position. Cronan would clearly be considered as qualified disabled. NET would be in violation of the ADA due to the discrimination of Cronan based upon his having AIDS. Furthermore, the labor union is also in apparent violation of the ADA due to the members' discrimination against Cronan.

Ethical Analysis

The ethical issues of this case are similar to the legal issues. Cronan believed his employer violated his right to privacy in an unfair and immoral manner by disclosing his medical condition to those who had no need to know about it. Cronan perceived that this disclosure led to an environment of suspicion and hostility in his workplace. Secondly, Cronan believed that he was unjustly discriminated against in the terms and conditions of his employment and in his employment status based solely on his AIDS condition.

The rights principle of ethical theory explains that each individual has a moral right to be treated as free and equal to any other person and that all individuals have a moral duty to treat each other as free and equal. Cronan's ethical right to privacy was violated by NET when his supervisor, O'Brian, disclosed his condition to those without a valid need to know about it. O'Brian clearly did not treat Cronan as equal to himself or other