Will She Fit In

Letter to Protagonist in "Will She Fit in?"

Dear Susan,

You didn't attain the title of partner at Crowne by backing down from difficult challenges and dodging obstacles, and I'm certain you will apply the same cool headed and sound approach to problem solving to directly address this unfortunate situation with your client, Brian Hanson. Clearly, Brian's actions that evening were inappropriate and a violation of your right to not be harassed. But despite the fact that most everyone in your firm would publicly agree with this assessment, we both know that if news of this leaks out in an uncontrolled fashion, the ramifications could be personally devastating.

As I see it, your ethical dilemma is deciding what steps need to be taken to maintain your position within Crowne, minimize impact to the Pellmore relationship, and reduce or eliminate the possibility that a similar incident can happen again to you or your female colleagues at Crowne. You may also want to consider how your approach to this situation could impact women's acceptance in consulting or even in other male dominated industries.

Your options range in visibility from doing nothing, or "flying under the radar" as you call it, to filing a lawsuit against your client, Pellmore, or even your own firm. I contend that to do nothing would be a major mistake. From a Kantian perspective, it is your duty to take action to protect yourself and others from future advances. Staying silent is equivalent to allowing the situation to persist. Rule Utilitarianism also dictates immediate action by all victims of such harassment, as action by all reduces the potential cost incurred by individuals. Practically speaking, doing nothing also opens the door for Brian to take preemptive action by distorting the facts to protect himself.

Filing a sexual harassment lawsuit is at the other extreme end of actions. From a Kantian and Rule Utilitarianism perspective, a lawsuit is a logical means to exercise ones moral duty and can be the most effective path to altering status quo. The weakness to this approach, however, is the huge costs and risks you would have to endure. Practically speaking, win or loose the case,