In: Operations Management
The following discussion prompt is based on Ethical Question 5-5 in out textbook:
Wrongful Interference. Julie Whitchurch was an employee of Vizant Technologies, LLC. After she was fired, she created a website falsely accusing Vizant of fraud and mismanagement to discourage others from doing business with the company. Vizant filed a suit in a federal district court against her, alleging wrongful interference with a business relationship.
The court concluded that Whitchurch’s online criticism of Vizant adversely affected its employees and operations, forced it to accept reduced compensation to obtain business, and deterred outside investment. The court ordered Whitchurch to stop her online efforts to discourage others from doing business with Vizant.
How does the motivation for Whitchurch’s conduct differ from other cases that involve wrongful interference with a business relationship? What does this motivation suggest about the ethics in this situation? Discuss these issues and questions with your peers this week. Also, consider if there are other sections, such as 5.2c Defamation, that could perhaps be discussed here.
The wrongful interference with business relationship reflects an intentional practice done by a party that cause serious business related damage for the other party. Generally such interference is performed for the personal gains like, gaining competitive advantage in the business, for attracting the other party’s client etc. The motivation of Mrs. JW is different in this case. Here she had done this interference in for highlighting her highlighting her anger and vengeance for firing her from the job. There is no personal gain for her, but she expressed here dislike for the organization suing the online facilitation.
When this perception is viewed from ethical perspectives, Mrs. JW has performed an unethical practice. The organization might have fired her due to some specific reason. If she was not satisfied by the organization’s disciplinary actions she might have approached the court. Misrepresenting the organization online through spreading false and wrongful information is purely unethical