Legally, it would be wrong to deny a qualified person a job due to his or her physical or health condition, even though to the eyes of observers it is hindrance to deliverance of high quality work. More so, it is taken as a workplace discrimination case when a woman is denied certain privilege due to a health related issue, such as maternity leave. However, in Bryant case I will argue that it is morally permissible to deny her the promotion.
To begin with, I will evaluate how her health condition may be affected if she is given work which requires active involvement of the individual. I will also look at how illogical it would be to overlook someone’s health and consider legal measures instead. More importantly, I will look at how the performance in the company’s project will be affected by a slight error in participation, especially at the managerial level.
Morally, it is permissible to deny Bryant the promotion. It is true that she is suitable as the director of the newly created position and that she is believed to deliver excellent results if given the opportunity. However, it is important to look at some facts in order to be sure that with her health condition, she is capable of delivering quality work if given the opportunity. To begin with, it is clear and logical that she has to take a maternity leave, which unfortunately comes at a time when the company will be expecting a major move in its customers’ service. Bryant is expected to take her maternity leave two months before the company makes the first transaction of the new product. A maternity leave is a health requirement to any woman in the state where the company operates, and it cannot be undervalued at any circumstance.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
Although she defends herself by assuring that she would be available during all the crucial stages of the project, it is important to consider David Moss’ point of view. David reasons that there is no guarantee that Bryant will be available as she promises and the repercussions of such a situation would cost the company huge loss to competitors. It is true that one cannot foretell of what will happen during a maternity leave since it is a health related case. Therefore, it is not advisable to rely on a person on maternity leave with a delicate project. So why take such a risk?
However, the decision to take this course should involve all the stakeholders in the project, since it is well known that opposition to the decision may have a deadly impact on the workforce in the company. It would be important to make Bryant and other stakeholders in the project understand the importance of active participation in the venture and what it would cost the company in case of a slight delay in the project.
In conclusion, it is clear that the maternity leave for Bryant may affect her participation in the project, even though she tries to defend herself. It is also apparent that any slip-up in the project will cause the company incur expensive loss to competitors. It is at such a point when legal reasoning is not given much weight compared to logic and moral reasoning. Instead of taking risk, especially with a major stakeholder in the project as a director, it would be morally permissible to take certain steps like denying Bryant the position just for the company to be on the safe side.