It might well turn out that, for all practical purposes, this is the end of the
ID: 351484 • Letter: I
Question
It might well turn out that, for all practical purposes, this is the end of the matter that no further complications ever arise. However, there is a "worst case" possible scenario. Consider the following: It is now several years later. Tom Treehorn has retired and moved to Florida. Scott Lewis left ABC shortly after he discovered the chemical leaks in the warehouse. He is now a senior engineer in a company in a nearby city. He is startled by a front-page story in the press. ABC is being charged with contaminating the groundwater in the community surrounding ABC. The paper claims there is substantial evidence that ABC had for years violated the law by dumping waste materials on site. Tom Treehorn is mentioned as the main person who was in.charge of overseeing the handling of chemical waste during the years of most flagrant violation. Those years included the short time Scott spent at ABC. A local group of citizens has started a class action suit against ABC. Three weeks later Scott Lewis receives a letter requesting his appearance at a court hearing concerning the charges against ABC. What should Scott say in his testimony if asked if he was aware of any violations on the part of ABC?Explanation / Answer
Engineer Scott Lewis tried to convey to Tom Treehorn about the possible legal transgression his actions were going to result into. However, due to lack of decisiveness about the matter, he let it go. Later he found out that there were incidents of chemical leaks from the facility which could have been avoided had he been more vocal in front of Tom.
Scott’s testimony should sound something like:
Yes, I was aware of the fact that it is legally not permissible to bring the chemicals to ABC’s home site. There was a protracted discussion I had with Tom Treehorn, then head of ABC’s Division of Chemical Waste about the proceedings. His point-of-view was that the crew at the off-site was not adept at handling such waste, and it could be done better in the home facility. The case for transporting chemical waste to home location was presented to me as if it was for the greater good of the environment. I, unfortunately, was gullible to fall into this trap. The motive behind the action was profit maximisation.
I say all of this at the risk of personal litigation against me by the court of law and my own professional engineering society, but the fact is that it was my own lack of decisiveness that led to me not reporting the issue.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.