After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, companies around the world built and refined models of working in both fully remote and hybrid environments. While many of these policies and programs focused on maintaining operational productivity, few intentionally considered equity in their structures or outlined guidelines to ensure all employees felt they were treated fairly, regardless of chosen work modality or other external factors. While many organizations looked at factors such as pay, promotion rate, and attrition across different demographics as key measurements of equity, the onset of remote work appeared to require an expansion of these variables to include work modality so that companies can more clearly understand how physical presence in the office might impact these measures of advancement in the workplace. This technical note offers an overview of equity and remote work, including benefits of remote work for marginalized groups and challenges presented by remote work, including career-limiting factors. At the Darden School of Business, it is taught in first-year and second-year ethics electives. It would also be suitable in a module covering diversity, equity, and inclusion.

This public-sourced case is based on a series of decisions Microsoft and other US-based technology companies made between 2021 and 2022 related to hybrid and return-to-office work policies coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The case focuses on the balance that must be struck between policies that enable employee flexibility in terms of choosing a work modality (based on factors such as productivity, physical health considerations, professional growth, and home care requirements, among others), while not disproportionately harming career prospects for historically marginalized groups who might prefer to work remotely (out of preference or necessity). Discussion could focus on topics such as distribution of care work, professional double standards for women, intersectionality, and other ethical considerations. At the Darden School of Business, this case is taught in first-year and second-year ethics electives. It would also be suitable in a module covering diversity, equity, and inclusion.

This case study presents the dilemma of a vice president of human resources at a health data processing company who must decide how to implement the results of digital productivity monitoring software that tracked employees' work activity via, among other things, keystroke tracking, monitoring websites visited, and checking email content. The data tracked through the software produced an overall employee productivity score meant to assess who was doing what and when and helped identify employees who had generally been inactive and unproductive. This software was controversial within the company. Many employees called it intrusive and dystopian. Other employees were positive about the software's use, claiming that it helped them be more productive and focused, and that it rewarded good workplace behavior. The decision the vice president now faces is how to adjust the salaries of all employees based on the productivity detected by the monitoring system in the face of internal polarization about the software. Should the vice president boost the salaries of those with the greatest productivity and decrease the salaries of those with low output?

In late 2021, Netflix leadership had to deal with some fierce employee and public blowback after airing The Closer, a comedy special by comedian Dave Chappelle. In the special-the last of six that Chappelle was contracted to make for Netflix-his targets included the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, plus others (LGBTQ+) community, particularly the transgender and nonbinary segments of that population. Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Reed Hastings were caught by surprise by the reaction, particularly from Netflix employees, to the special. While supportive of Chappelle despite his often-incendiary remarks over the years, Sarandos and Hastings knew they had to do major damage control. Had they made the wrong decision in allowing this particularly strident special to air? Should they take it off the platform? What was the future of Netflix's relationship with Chappelle? And-very importantly for a company that prized its workforce and had tried to create a culture of inclusion and diversity-how would they deal with Netflix's many disaffected employees?

In late 2021, Netflix leadership had to deal with some fierce employee and public blowback after airing The Closer, a comedy special by comedian Dave Chappelle. In the special-the last of six that Chappelle was contracted to make for Netflix-his targets included the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, plus others (LGBTQ+) community, particularly the transgender and nonbinary segments of that population. Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Reed Hastings were caught by surprise by the reaction, particularly from Netflix employees, to the special. While supportive of Chappelle despite his often-incendiary remarks over the years, Sarandos and Hastings knew they had to do major damage control. Had they made the wrong decision in allowing this particularly strident special to air? Should they take it off the platform? What was the future of Netflix's relationship with Chappelle? And-very importantly for a company that prized its workforce and had tried to create a culture of inclusion and diversity-how would they deal with Netflix's many disaffected employees?

In late 2021, Netflix leadership had to deal with some fierce employee and public blowback after airing The Closer, a comedy special by comedian Dave Chappelle. In the special-the last of six that Chappelle was contracted to make for Netflix-his targets included the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, plus others (LGBTQ+) community, particularly the transgender and nonbinary segments of that population. Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Reed Hastings were caught by surprise by the reaction, particularly from Netflix employees, to the special. While supportive of Chappelle despite his often-incendiary remarks over the years, Sarandos and Hastings knew they had to do major damage control. Had they made the wrong decision in allowing this particularly strident special to air? Should they take it off the platform? What was the future of Netflix's relationship with Chappelle? And-very importantly for a company that prized its workforce and had tried to create a culture of inclusion and diversity-how would they deal with Netflix's many disaffected employees?

Jay Williams, cohead of the Nashville office of the William Morris Endeavor (WME), must decide how to respond to an incident involving Morgan Wallen, one of the talent agency's fastest-rising country music stars. Wallen, a white singer, was caught on home security footage using an ethnic slur with a group of white friends after a night of drinking. The following day, the footage was released to the public, and Wallen was swiftly disavowed by his record company, the two largest country music institutions, and hundreds of country radio stations. Williams faces pressure from executives in WME's Beverly Hills corporate office, because Black A-list clients are lobbying the agency to drop the enormously popular Wallen from the WME client roster. In this A case, Williams considers several complicating factors: (1) Dropping Wallen would hurt WME's bottom line, which was already damaged by the COVID-19 pandemic, and Williams does not want to be responsible for more layoffs. (2) The social justice movement from the summer of 2020 is still fresh in Williams's mind, and he knows that companies like WME need to take swift action after a racially charged incident or risk public backlash. (3) Wallen's agent is Austin Neal, the son of a WME partner, and forcing Neal to drop Wallen could permanently damage the company's relationship with this rapidly rising agent. (4) WME's parent company is preparing for an IPO, so there is extra pressure for the Nashville office's finances to look good, as well as to avoid controversy. This case set can be applied to a range of relevant topics: ethical decision-making, corporate responsibility, cancel culture, business and political polarization, employee (talent) representation, public relations and scandal management, and leadership.

Jay Williams, cohead of the Nashville office of the William Morris Endeavor (WME), must decide how to respond to an incident involving Morgan Wallen, one of the talent agency's fastest-rising country music stars. Wallen, a white singer, was caught on home security footage using an ethnic slur with a group of white friends after a night of drinking. The following day, the footage was released to the public, and Wallen was swiftly disavowed by his record company, the two largest country music institutions, and hundreds of country radio stations. Williams faces pressure from executives in WME's Beverly Hills corporate office, because Black A-list clients are lobbying the agency to drop the enormously popular Wallen from the WME client roster. In this A case, Williams considers several complicating factors: (1) Dropping Wallen would hurt WME's bottom line, which was already damaged by the COVID-19 pandemic, and Williams does not want to be responsible for more layoffs. (2) The social justice movement from the summer of 2020 is still fresh in Williams's mind, and he knows that companies like WME need to take swift action after a racially charged incident or risk public backlash. (3) Wallen's agent is Austin Neal, the son of a WME partner, and forcing Neal to drop Wallen could permanently damage the company's relationship with this rapidly rising agent. (4) WME's parent company is preparing for an IPO, so there is extra pressure for the Nashville office's finances to look good, as well as to avoid controversy. This case set can be applied to a range of relevant topics: ethical decision-making, corporate responsibility, cancel culture, business and political polarization, employee (talent) representation, public relations and scandal management, and leadership.

Jay Williams, cohead of the Nashville office of the William Morris Endeavor (WME), must decide how to respond to an incident involving Morgan Wallen, one of the talent agency's fastest-rising country music stars. Wallen, a white singer, was caught on home security footage using an ethnic slur with a group of white friends after a night of drinking. The following day, the footage was released to the public, and Wallen was swiftly disavowed by his record company, the two largest country music institutions, and hundreds of country radio stations. Williams faces pressure from executives in WME's Beverly Hills corporate office, because Black A-list clients are lobbying the agency to drop the enormously popular Wallen from the WME client roster. In this A case, Williams considers several complicating factors: (1) Dropping Wallen would hurt WME's bottom line, which was already damaged by the COVID-19 pandemic, and Williams does not want to be responsible for more layoffs. (2) The social justice movement from the summer of 2020 is still fresh in Williams's mind, and he knows that companies like WME need to take swift action after a racially charged incident or risk public backlash. (3) Wallen's agent is Austin Neal, the son of a WME partner, and forcing Neal to drop Wallen could permanently damage the company's relationship with this rapidly rising agent. (4) WME's parent company is preparing for an IPO, so there is extra pressure for the Nashville office's finances to look good, as well as to avoid controversy. This case set can be applied to a range of relevant topics: ethical decision-making, corporate responsibility, cancel culture, business and political polarization, employee (talent) representation, public relations and scandal management, and leadership.

In 2006, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) published "Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options," which, among other things, detailed the connection between livestock agriculture, particularly beef, and its adverse impact on the environment, including land, soil, and water degradation as well as the reduction of biodiversity. Raising livestock contributed, globally, to 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The report presented a problem for McDonald's, one of the world's largest fast-food restaurant chains, which was one of the largest global purchasers of beef, at 500 million pounds annually. Bob Langert, McDonald's Vice-President of Sustainability, was tasked by the CEO to create a "bold, offensive strategy" in sustainability. Langert knew that for McDonald's to consider its operations truly sustainable, it should begin to look beyond fixing incremental problems within its current system and instead consider transforming the beef system itself. Because of its global reach and international scale, McDonald's was ideally situated to lead the US beef industry to explore more sustainable practices. The company already had a track record of sustainable transformation in waste, packaging, and recycling. However, Langert knew it would not be an easy task, since there would be many environmental organizations as well as the National Beef and Cattlemen's Association that would be scrutinizing McDonald's efforts. Langert and his colleagues would need to navigate the large cast of characters-internal and external, both individuals and organizations-in their efforts to address the issues around livestock agriculture and sustainability.

The meteoric rise of ride-sharing firm Uber illustrates how gig-economy firms can grow to prominence and disrupt older, mature industries. Yet Uber's trajectory has also been rife with nontrivial tensions and controversies. The company has struggled with labor issues for drivers, safety issues for riders, cultural issues for employees, and external costs imposed on communities. How do these frictions matter, and why? What are the implications for Uber going forward? What's the role of effective stakeholder engagement and value creation in organizational success? This case is used at Darden in the first-year core Strategy course, often in conjunction with Chapter 6 of the book The Strategist's Toolkit (""Stakeholder Analysis""), by Jared D. Harris and Michael J. Lenox. The case is also suitable for Darden's first-year core Ethics course. It is appropriate for use in any course or module covering stakeholder management from either a strategic or ethical perspective. Students adopt the role of a female executive in a male-dominated corporate culture.

This case is a follow-up to ""Gwen Berry and the Politics of Protest (A)"" (UVA-E-0479). Gwen Berry did protest at the Pan American Games in the summer of 2019 by raising her fist in the air when the US national anthem was playing. Pushback by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the public was swift and fierce. Berry, along with US fencing team member Race Imboden, who also protested, was put on problem for a year and immediately lost the sponsors who had supported her. With few exceptions, her fellow athletes voiced no support. However, after the death of George Floyd in May 2020 and the subsequent protests and sustained examination of social and racial-justice issues, things seemed to be turning a positive corner. The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee apologized to Berry and seemed to be making the protest rules more lenient. Yet Berry knew that the underlying problems still existed and that the IOC maintained its grip on how protests could occur and on the athletes' lives and livelihoods. Berry thought about how she should move forward, both to propel her track and field career and to help other athletes stand up for themselves with the USOPC and make their voices heard-and, hopefully, to change the mindset and thinking of the IOC leadership.

In the summer of 2019, notable track and field athlete Gwen Berry was representing Team USA at the Pan American Games in Peru when, having won the hammer throw-her specialty-she stood anxiously on the podium for the medal ceremony as the United States national anthem began to play. As she thought about both her own challenging upbringing and the social and racial injustice in the United States, exemplified by a recent encounter she'd had with a suffering homeless person, Berry wanted to make a gesture of protest. To do so, however, was against the International Olympic Committee's (IOC's) Rule 50, which prohibited protest in many sports venues, and would no doubt result in Berry's being disciplined at best, and perhaps even prohibited from further competition at worst. She was torn between making a statement there on the podium and the possible consequences and harm to her athletic career that might ensue if she did. This case pairs well with a technical note about the IOC's Rule 50, ""The United States Olympic Committee and Rule 50 in the 21st Century"" (UVA-E-0478).

This technical note explains the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) Rule 50, put into place in the 1970s, which prohibited protest at the Olympic Games. The stated goals of the rule were to (1) protect the athletes; (2) minimize commercialization of the Games in what was known as the ""clean venue"" policy; (3) prevent the Games from becoming a vehicle for ""promotion of political, religious or racial propaganda""; and (4) specify what was allowed on sports uniforms and equipment (such as logos and manufacturers' name), all to prevent unauthorized parties from using the public platform of the Olympics for their own purpose. However, athletes had pushed back for decades and, in 2020, with worldwide social protest following the killing of George Floyd, the IOC had to rethink Rule 50 and how the organization would deal with protest at the Games. This note gives a brief history of the Olympics and of protest at the games over the course of their existence.

Anna Bender, VP of product at Workaround, a large human resources (HR) software firm, had just been presented with a number of different recommendations from her employees on how to integrate the functionality and data from a recently acquired software company that had a leading chat app into Workaround's offerings. Although she was impressed by many of the suggestions, Bender was also ethically conflicted about some of them. The business opportunities and ethical implications of each of the three proposals weighed on Bender's mind as she prepared to meet with the senior leadership team the next day. Before doing so, however, she had to identify the potential ethical issues with each suggestion and analyze ways they might be minimized, particularly with regard to privacy and potential antitrust concerns. The worst possible outcome would be getting dragged up in front of Congress. Yet, more broadly, she wanted her decision to reflect the core values of Workaround's business and her own personal values.

In May 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and the protests that followed the death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody, leadership at the National Association for Stock Car Automobile Racing (NASCAR), the American auto-racing company best known for stock-car racing, had to decide whether to ban the Confederate flag at its events. To many, the flag was emblematic of racism and a celebration of the Confederacy and its attempts, in the American Civil War, to retain the institution of slavery. Race attendees often carried the flag with them, it was emblazoned on clothes, souvenirs, and mugs, and some even tattooed it on themselves. The Confederate flag had been controversial for years, and NASCAR had tried to eliminate it and other racist symbols from its events, but to no avail. But this time was different: awareness of injustice and inequity had permeated the country's social consciousness and people throughout America had taken to the streets to protest. Nonetheless, many NASCAR fans claimed the Confederacy flag was representative of "heritage, not hate" and threatened to boycott the sport if it were banned. Despite NASCAR's attempts to diversify both the organization and the audience, NASCAR's fan base remained decidedly conservative and, for the most part, tolerant of the flag's presence. NASCAR did not want to alienate its fan base, but leadership did want to change with the times and instill diversity in every aspect of the organization. It also did not want to put up roadblocks to attendee comfort-and for many current and potential fans, the Confederate flag's presence was a roadblock.

This case is a follow-up to ""NASCAR and the Confederate Flag (A)"" (UVA-E-0441). It outlines how National Association for Stock Car Automobile Racing (NASCAR) leadership announced on June 10, 2020, that the Confederate flag was no longer welcome at race events and venues. Reaction was both positive and negative. However, despite this decisive move, questions remained, including: How would each track enforce the ban? What steps could NASCAR take to move past this controversy and get fans-and some employees who disagreed with the ban-to focus on the sport? How could NASCAR grow its demographics beyond the conservative, white Southerners who had comprised much of NASCAR's fanbase over history, and how could the organization become more inclusive?

These fictional caselets, some of which are based on lived experience, present dilemmas and ethical issues in the financial field. The situations include an investment-banking firm executive deciding how to handle an investment tip; an executive struggling with whether to push her tech start-up client to a lucrative IPO or to follow her company's directive to push a merger instead; an employee asked to contravene accepted accounting practice; an employee at a wealth-management firm pressured to promote two underperforming funds; a financial manager whose elderly clients unwisely want to liquidate a significant portion of their savings for a risky venture; and a fintech venture manager who is conflicted about the high interest loans his company offers. These caselets outline and convey the complexities and difficult choices that individuals in the world of finance often confront.

This note, written to accompany "The NBA, China, and Social Media: What Are the Rules of the Game?" (UVA-E-0459) but useful in tandem with other cases, charts the history of freedom of speech in the United States. The US Constitution did not originally include the Bill of Rights (which contains the 1st through 10th Amendments), but after more than 200 years of legal and philosophical shifts, expression rights receive legal protection on a tiered system, with political speech enjoying the least abridgment, commercial and sexually explicit expression subject to some government censorship, and obscenity and fighting words enjoying no protection. This note focuses on political speech, summed up in the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This protection had its challenges over the years, with the most notable blow being the 1798 Sedition Act, which criminalized any questioning of the authority or laws of the US President or Congress. (Congress eventually allowed this act to expire), as well as some 20th century cases (for example, Schenck v. United States, 1919). The note touches on John Stuart Mill's 1859 On Liberty, which made philosophical arguments for the value of free expression that would come to undergird liberal legal interpretations of the 1st Amendment some hundred years later, as well as the repeated infringements of constitutional rights, including free expression during the US Civil War, the Espionage Act of 1917, and the Sedition Act of 1918, and other attempts to suppress free speech. Also referenced is theorist Alexander Meiklejohn, who, in 1949, outlined a highly influential philosophy on the limits of free expression.

This note describes how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), founded in 1949, has attempted to create and maintain an official narrative of the country and regime that tilts toward the favorable and minimizes any negative. A key component of the historical narrative has been China's so-called Century of Humiliation, in which China suffered exploitation at the hands of various other nations. Mistreatment by foreigners resulted in China's being disadvantaged in unequal treaties, being impoverished by outrageous indemnity payments, and suffering territorial losses (e.g., Hong Kong and Macau) and violations of its sovereignty (e.g., foreign concessions). In announcing the founding of the PRC in 1949, CCP Chairman Mao Zedong said, ""Ours will no longer be a nation subject to insult and humiliation. We have stood up."" Reference to the Century of Humiliation and China's refusal to be controlled any longer was meant to inspire and motivate national pride in the Chinese people. In recent years, the influence of the national humiliation narrative has become increasingly apparent in China's international actions. The CCP has aggressively responded to perceived offenses by foreign entities, be they governments or companies, with public criticism and mobilization of Chinese netizens. This note was written to accompany ""The NBA, China, and Social Media: What Are the Rules of the Game?"" (UVA-E-0459), which outlines the Chinese reaction to 2019 social media posts sympathetic to protestors in Hong Kong. It gives background on the national humiliation narrative and its ongoing influence on China's relationship with its own people and with other nations.