The selection of employees is a responsible part of any business, which affects the development and success of the company. It is especially important when it comes to establishments where the client has direct contact with employees. In shops, such contact is argued by auditory and visual perception, which formulates the importance of both the aspect of appearance and speech. In addition, different stores have their own philosophy, which justifies the establishment of specific own rules. However, sometimes there are emergency situations that require analysis and the result of which can be unpredictable. In this regard, the work aims to analyze the case in the store The Sporty One on the basis of the legislative and recruitment aspects.
The situation is that the store needed a salesperson with experience, and some special requirements were specified. These included retail experience, energy, young age, and the ability to present the product in a styled manner. Two applicants applied for the position, a middle-aged woman, Petunia, with a background in sales, and a college graduate in marketing. However, the graduate had no retail experience, only customer service experience. The company chose a graduate, after which the woman came to the store and created a scandal. Graduate, escorting a woman out of the store, accidentally pushed her onto 92-year-old Hetty Whitestone, which caused Whitestone to die.
To analyze this issue, one should consider it in terms of BFOJQ (Bona Fide Occupational Job Qualifications). It is a requirement that may be legally enforced by an employer in the context of the employee’s gender, religion, or origin (Arnold et al., 2019). In other words, if only women are required for a position in an organization, the employer can legally reject applications from men. In the current case, CARDWARE has no genuine BFOQ in its ad since there were no restrictions related to the abovementioned factors. It only indicated the age and the preferred body type, which is explained by the policy of the stores. However, this requirement is still legal as it correlates with the sports shop philosophy. It is essential to understand that the sporty appearance of sellers subconsciously sets the buyer up for the fact that this sportswear company is of high quality.
From Petunia’s point of view, by rejecting the application, the store discriminated against the age. Such a position for Petunia is formulated by having an experience in retail, which means Petunia was more suitable for this position. However, the store gave preference to a younger employee, albeit without suitable experience. In defense of CARDWARE, one can mention that each store has its own philosophy and special requirements, like any business. Considering the company’s slogan, the store’s philosophy was to convince the customer of their clothes’ effectiveness and to give them the opportunity to feel the atmosphere of sports and to be an athlete. Based on this, the store has the right to give preference to those candidates who meet these requirements in order to promote product development and customer satisfaction.
Talking about if Petunia brings a lawsuit against the Sporty One and CARDWARE, will the employee be responsible for the employer’s behavior? One may highlight several points. Firstly, there is a special test that allows one to determine whether the employer, in this case, the store, should be responsible for its employees. This test determines whether the employee’s actions are suitable for what one should do as part of one’s duties (Arnold et al., 2019). In other words, if the client was harmed by any of the employee’s actions, one can determine whether the employee should have taken them. That is, if a customer suffers from poorly prepared food in a restaurant, then the restaurant owner is responsible for such actions. If the client suffered from the cook coming out after work and being rude to the client, then the responsibility lies with the cook.
The main defense strategy that CARDWARE can utilize is the accident claim. Indeed, judging by the description of the situation, the employee did not intend to harm anyone. Moreover, one might notice that the actions of the graduate were aimed at preserving the store’s image since Petunia’s scandal scared the customers. What happened next is a coincidence that led to such consequences. In addition, it is worth noting that the incident occurred outside the store, on the territory of the shopping center. This fact is in favor of the claim that the incident can be considered a casualty, and CARDWARE should not be held responsible.
To conclude, any business requires a careful selection of employees to meet the business’s requirements and policies. In this case, the requirements for age and athleticism are legitimate, as they contribute to the promotion of the product and do not violate human rights. In addition, the graduate’s actions that caused the casualty may be considered in terms of the company’s reputation. CARDWARE’s defense must be built on the fact that the graduate took action to protect the image of the store and customers, as the Petunia scandal had a negative impact. The incident with Hetty Whitestone took place outside the store, so this can be considered an accident.
Reference
Arnold, D. G., Beauchamp, T. L., & Bowie, N. E. (2019). Ethical theory and business. Cambridge University Press.