個案總覽

Executive Director Nicole Fuhsel faced a difficult decision: Was she going to take a more resource-light approach and do the bare minimum to simply meet legal requirements for health and safety at the company, or take a more resource-heavy approach to develop a program that truly supported the health and safety of staff and satisfied her personal drive to 'go above and beyond'. With limited resources available (time, people, money) and negative implications inherent in both options, the decision will be difficult to make. The case provides an outline of LINX business operations - a not for profit disability service organization that is heavily reliant on government grants, Nicole Fuhsel's background, and the current state of the safety program and staff-focused safety issues. There is no direct timeline or due date pressing upon Fuhsel. The Government of Alberta has already suggested that LINX' program is minimally sufficient and therefore there is not a legal compliance rationale to further develop the program. The question is whether Fuhsel decides to invest scarce resources to making improvements to the program to better support the safety of her staff and satisfy her personal drive for program excellence, or leaves the program as it is.

The director of diversity and inclusion at a community agency is trying to decide whether to update her business email signature to express her gender identity by providing preferred pronouns. The director must decide whether the benefits of adding the information exceed the potential costs.<br><br><br><br>Subsequently, in a second and third situation—each situation presented as a separate addition to the main case—the director must decide the extent to which she will formally influence her workers to update their email signatures with gender pronoun, and then whether to update her LinkedIn profile. Much of her decision rests on the cultural operating norms of the organization and the director’s role in the organization.

The director of diversity and inclusion at a community agency is trying to decide whether to update her business email signature to express her gender identity by providing preferred pronouns. The director must decide whether the benefits of adding the information exceed the potential costs. Subsequently, in a second and third situation-each situation presented as a separate addition to the main case-the director must decide the extent to which she will formally influence her workers to update their email signatures with gender pronoun, and then whether to update her LinkedIn profile. Much of her decision rests on the cultural operating norms of the organization and the director's role in the organization.

In November 2014, the Residence Services department at MacEwan University in Alberta, Canada, needed to replace a residence assistant who was exiting midway through the academic year. The new hire would have one semester of work for the current academic year and, with good performance, was expected to return for two semesters of work in the following academic year. One of the qualified applicants had a distinguishable disability: she used a wheelchair. On the one hand, it would be easier for Residence Services to not hire her because of the various potential risks, concerns, or expected difficulties that could arise with her employment. The primary concern was her ability to respond effectively to emergency situations. A secondary concern was the impact on operational efficiency and the need to adapt work and staff routines to accommodate the use of a wheelchair. On the other hand, it was not legal to discriminate against the candidate for employment, and Residence Services valued inclusive hiring practices. The decision to hire or not hire this candidate needed to be made very soon.

In November 2014, the Residence Services department at MacEwan University in Alberta, Canada, needed to replace a residence assistant who was exiting midway through the academic year. The new hire would have one semester of work for the current academic year and, with good performance, was expected to return for two semesters of work in the following academic year. One of the qualified applicants had a distinguishable disability: she used a wheelchair. On the one hand, it would be easier for Residence Services to not hire her because of the various potential risks, concerns, or expected difficulties that could arise with her employment. The primary concern was her ability to respond effectively to emergency situations. A secondary concern was the impact on operational efficiency and the need to adapt work and staff routines to accommodate the use of a wheelchair. On the other hand, it was not legal to discriminate against the candidate for employment, and Residence Services valued inclusive hiring practices. The decision to hire or not hire this candidate needed to be made very soon.