Applying the Ethics Code For this discussion, review the first two Case Study Scenario media pieces linked in Resources. After reviewing Case Study Scenario 1: Multiculturalism, respond to the following: What ethical and legal concerns are raised in this scenario? Identify the applicable ethical standards. Which ethical principles is the chair violating? What are the pros and cons of teaching the class? Support your observations with scholarly sources. After reviewing Case Study Scenario 2, respond to the following: What are two additional ethical or legal issues related to the scenario? In light of the new ethical concerns, propose a solution. Your initial discussion post should be at least 200 words. Remember to cite the sources you use to support your initial posts and responses. Response Guidelines Choose at least two learners who saw things differently from you and explore their approaches to this scenario. Please try to choose posts that have not yet had responses. Compare and contrast your responses to those of your peers. Discuss how your perspectives have changed based on the information you learned. Where do you agree? Differ? **Both Case Study 1 and 2 Scenario Videos are under the assignment Resources** **Peers to Respond to (Choose 2 that meet the requirements in the directions) -Lydia Montgomery Unit 5 Discussion 1 Ethically, the Department Chairperson, Ben, was cruel to put the dilemma of 15 students needing the class to graduate on Jenny. He also should not have threatened her job, legally and ethically, based on the premise of her taking on the extra class. She has, ethically, stated she is not comfortable taking on that specific class because of her unfamiliarity. I am conflicted over the ethics of his introduction toward the professor being unable to take on the class due to his wife having a stroke because not only does this prove the confidentiality is not there for that professor, however it is also another obligation for Jenny to take the job based on her affiliation with the professor. Ethical Principle 1.03 states that if a psychologist’s ethical agreement conflicts with organizational demands, they must resolve the demands with the knowledge of their devotion to the Ethical Principles (APA, 2017). Ethical Principle 1.05 allows Jenny to report her dilemma and resolve the issue (APA, 2017). Ethical Principle 1.08 allows Jenny to raise issue to the discrimination of her situation, should she refuse or even for the case of her job laying on the line (APA, 2017). Ethical Principle 2.01 states a psychologist must operate within their competency, which Jenny stated she is not comfortable teaching that class because she is less familiar with the content (APA, 2017). Ethical Principle 2.05:2 adds that delegating responsibilities are required only to those with competence in the field (APA, 2017). Ethical Principles 7.01, 7.02, 7.03 and 7.06 each relay the importance of the students receiving the highest accuracy of their education from teachers and require the teachers to grade and provide in accordance with the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles (APA, 2017). Legally, Jenny can file or sue the chairperson and the college for wrongful discrimination. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission “laws prohibit punishing job applicants or employees for asserting their rights to be free from employment discrimination including harassment” and “refusing to follow orders that result in discrimination” (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2015). The pros of teaching this class, for Jenny, are that she is able to provide a guarantee for those students to graduate, is up for a full-time position without complication, will learn as she teaches in a field she is unfamiliar with and will relieve that professor from dealing with the stress of not having someone to fill his job while he focuses on his wife. The cons of teaching this class are that Jenny is not familiar with the content and she will be unable to guarantee the students to learn all they need to know before graduation, she will be going against the Ethical Principles and she has the possibility of being reviewed by the American Psychological Association. In the Case Study 2 Scenario, a new issue was brought up: Gender Discrimination (Capella University, 2021). If it can be proved through an extensive investigation that there is discrimination against the female employees, there is definitely a lawsuit for the department. The EEO states an example of a reason for retaliation might be the workload becoming increasingly difficult (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2015). The compensation or job description does not match up with what is being put on Jenny. She may use these as a defense. Ethical Principle 3.06 states a psychologist must not take on a role that: “impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists” and this does (APA, 2017). The solution for Jenny is to confront the chairperson about her ethical dilemmas as stated by the American Psychological Association with the consequences and if this does not work, speak with Human Relations about her issue and take on the department for discrimination. Personally, I would look for a new job and let the man find a replacement for the class and my job. American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code Capella University. (2021). Multiculturalism. Case study scenario 1. https://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/psy7543/CaseStudyScenario1_video/PSY7543_scenario1.asp Capella University. (2021). Part 2. Case study scenario part 2. https://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/psy7543/scenario_2/media.asp U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2015). Retaliation. https://www.eeoc.gov/retaliation -James Puvel U05D1 As a professional in the field of medicine and psychology and as I have worked in the medical department in a prison for the past ten years, I have taken year after year and ethics course and a company compliance course. I also must review the HIPAA regulations and sign a form every year stating that I understand the rules and regulation, so ethics and HIPAA compliance is not a new area for me. In the first scenario, I noticed that right off the bat the chair violated his professor’s privacy rights by discussing his personal medical and family information with another professor. That is a big no, no and violates the code of ethics as well as HIPAA policies. Then the chair used that information to coerce the woman he was speaking with into deciding about a position he needed to be filled. He was using the current situation of the other professor as leverage to try and either get this woman to teach the class or get rid of her. One of the ethical standards that could be used that the chair violated could be under section 3: human rights – 3.08 Exploitative Relationships. This states that Psychologists do not exploit persons over whom they have supervisory, evaluative, or other authority such as clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, and employees (APA, 2021). He chair is using his power as a supervisor to try and get the woman to fill a spot he needs filled despite her hesitation about teaching the class. The pro of teaching the class is that she will get the experience needed to continue teaching and she may even learn something new from her students. The con is that she is not ready for the class, and she may do a poor job at teaching the class which will not benefit the students. Scenario number two is different, I feel like the scenario took a turn for the woman feeling like they are not being compensated enough for the work they are providing. It also feels like it could be on the border of sexual harassment or discrimination. It feels like the woman are being used to fill in the spots at work just because they are woman, and the chair feels like he can bend them to his will. This could fall again under section 3: human rights – 3.01 & 3.03 (APA, 2021). 3.01 is the section on the APA sight under human rights that describes unfair work conditions and section 3.03 is the section that describes other harassment. Both of these could be used against the chair if the woman were to file harassment charges with their human resources center and their compliance/ethics officer. S possible solution to this problem is for the woman to meet with the entire board before being offered a title or position. It would also be in the best interest of the board to compensate the woman for the job they are doing as much as they would compensate the men. We all work for what we want, why should woman make less money than men just because they are females. It is not right and very inappropriate. Reference American Psychological Association. (2021). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.