Business Ethics Case Study

1. The Facts: Kermit Vandivier works for B.F. Goodrich. His job assignment was to write the qualifying report on the four disk brakes for LTV Aerospace Corporation. LTV purchased aircraft brakes from B.F. Goodrich for the Air Force. Goodrich desperately wanted the contract because it guaranteed a commitment from the Air Force on future brake purchases for the A7D from them, even if they lost money on the initial contract.

John Warren is a seven-year senior project engineer with Goodrich was directly in charge of the original computations for the brake and the preliminary design. While using Warren’s design, it was Searle Lawson’s job to run the preliminary test for stopping 51 times. Lawson found that high temperatures increased the collapse of the brake linings before the required 51 consecutive stops. After reviewing Warren’s original design, he discovered the problem with the size of the brakes. With his discovery, he forwards the information to Warren who rejected the notion of a possible flaw in his design. Warren’s ego will not allow him to admit to the miscalculations in his design and having a graduate discovering the flaw would make him look bad in front of Goodrich. Lawson decided to surpass Warren’s authority and go directly to supervisor Robert Sink. He was told by Sink to continue with the test as Warren had directed. Several months later, Lawson tried to get the brake to pass the qualifying test by using various lining materials, which resulted in the burning of the linings.

Richard Gloor was assigned to the A7D project as a testing engineer. He noticed the instrumentation that was used to record brake pressure have been tampered with the calibration. He told Vandivier he questioned the instrumentation personnel ...

... middle of paper ...

...as sent postal certified with a signature required. I would also keep a detailed journal at home, of which employee was involved and what was said. With the latest spy technology, I would have eyeglasses with a tiny camera attached to the frame. By doing this, no participant in this fraud case can imply the “he said, she said” syndrome. Having them on video knowingly committing fraud that could result in causalities will be difficult to explain in Federal Court. I would also make a copy for myself since I will be fired and I need the leverage for my upcoming lawsuit. For me, I would not jeopardize someone’s life, let alone my own over money. I have the right to allow someone to influence my moral behavior or I can stick to what I believe in, which is to tell. I do not need any help in getting to hell because I can do that all by myself.