In September 2014 Leyth Jamal, a transgender woman, filed suit against her employer, luxury retailer Saks Fifth Avenue. Jamal alleged that she experienced harassment from managers and other employees because of her gender identity while employed by Saks, including verbal abuse and threats of violence. At the time she filed suit, no federal, state, or local laws protected transgender employees from discrimination. However, some federal district courts had recently begun to allow such suits on the premise that discrimination based on gender identity was a form of sex discrimination. Other suits and amicus briefs brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) furthered this trend. The EEOC is the federal agency charged with investigating and supporting claims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so district and appellate courts watched the EEOC's position on the application of Title VII. Socio-culturally, many Americans supported transgender rights, even as they voiced anxiety about transgender men in women's bathrooms. This case has students assume the role of a trusted member of the executive team of Hudson's Bay Company, which owns Saks Fifth Avenue. One Friday afternoon in late December 2014, the Hudson's Bay CEO sends an email to his executive team notifying them that he has approved corporate counsel's motion to dismiss Jamal's case based on the argument that transgender people are not a protected class according to Title VII. The motion will be filed in federal court on Monday. The CEO shares that he personally believes it is preposterous for anyone to think that Saks Fifth Avenue is anything but a strong advocate for LGBT rights, but he invites executive team members to call him if they have any concerns. Members of the executive team have a responsibility to consider the broader strategic implications for the company, so students must decide if and how to respond to the CEO.

This case puts students in the shoes of the Ebola response leadership teams of Firestone Liberia and its parent company, Bridgestone Americas, as they worked together to respond to the deadly 2014 Ebola epidemic. While the companies had received positive press for their containment of the virus on their rubber farm in Liberia, which was home to 8,000 employees and 80,000 Liberian citizens, the situation off the property was worsening. With death counts rising and hospitals across the nation closing as staff caught the virus, the Liberian government declared a national state of emergency. The teams now faced the possibility that the government might attempt to take control of the farm's medical center. How could they balance their duty to care effectively for employees against the demands of the Liberian government? Should they try to fend off the government or cooperate to meet the government's demands? Students will learn how to do a methodical situation analysis that considers ethical obligations and strategic implications, and to distill their recommendation into a briefing for senior leadership.

The Disney Crisis Exercise is not revealed here because it is entirely an in-class experience; students should not have access to any details prior to the exercise. Complete information is available to instructors in the teaching note. In this real-time exercise, student teams will advise Disney how to respond to a crisis precipitated by vocal and well-organized influence groups that threaten its brand as part of their advocacy on behalf of social causes. The crisis occurs against a backdrop of dynamic industry and company changes, many of which have important consequences for Disney.

Dave Williams has taken over as CEO for MBC Corporation and wants to change the mission statement of the company. However, he needs to get approval from four shareholders: a former board chairman, his father and current board chairman, and two members of his own executive team. Williams must navigate the varying dynamics and opinions of the shareholders to gain their buy-in and create a new mission statement that will take MBC on a new path for the future.

The case describes the international problem of money laundering and summarizes U.S. bank regulations aimed at reducing money laundering activities. The introduction of H.R. 3886 in 2000 was one in a series of attempts to formalize U.S. banks' monitoring of their customers. The bill was prompted by a government report that named and criticized U.S. banks for laundering billions of dollars linked to drug trafficking, fraud, and organized crime. Interest groups in favor of H.R. 3886 were predominantly law enforcement agencies that viewed current anti-money laundering laws as ineffective. Groups opposed to the bill included the American Civil Liberties Union, which believed that the collection of more information about bank customers' activities was an invasion of privacy, and the American Bankers Association, which claimed that the legislation would impose unnecessary costs on banks. The case can be used to introduce the distributive politics framework for analyzing non-market issues and formulating nonmarket strategies in the context of government institutions. The epilogue reveals that H.R. 3886 died before it ever reached the House floor, but that an expanded version of the legislation ultimately passed-with the support of stakeholders who originally fought it-as part of the USA PATRIOT Act after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This stance reversal provides an opportunity to explore how events, public opinion, and the media can create windows of policy opportunity.

In October 2005 the Bush administration was considering a dramatic change to the U.S. Food Aid program that would take 25 percent of the budget that would otherwise be used to buy food domestically and instead send direct cash transfers that could be used to buy food in or close to the countries in desperate need. The U.S. Food Aid program traditionally enjoyed support in Congress because it provided support to American farmers, agribusiness, and U.S. shipping interests in addition to nongovernmental organizations such as Catholic Relief Services and CARE. The case considers the proposal from the perspective of four different stakeholders: Cargill, USAid, Catholic Relief Services, and Oxfam. Each must come up with a response to the proposal.

The spread of bird flu outside of Asia, particularly in Africa and Europe, topped headlines in 2006. The migration of wild birds brought the virus to Europe, where for the first time it spread to productive livestock, bringing it closer to the Western world. Due to today's globalized and highly interconnected world, the consequences of a potential bird flu pandemic are expected to be much more severe than those of the Spanish flu, which killed 50-100 million people between 1918 and 1921. A vaccine for the bird virus is currently not available. As of July 2006, 232 cases of human infection had been documented, mostly through direct contact with poultry. Of those, 134 people died. The best medication available to treat bird flu was Roche's antiviral drug Tamiflu®. However, Tamiflu was not widely available; current orders of government bodies would not be fulfilled until the end of 2008. Well aware that today's avian flu might become a global pandemic comparable to the Spanish flu, Roche CEO Franz Humer had to decide how Roche should respond. While the pharmaceutical industry continued its research efforts on vaccines and medications, Tamiflu could play an important role by protecting healthcare workers and helping to contain the virus-or at least slow down its spread. Due to patent protection and a complicated production process with scarce raw ingredients, Roche had been the only producer of the drug. Partly in response to U.S. political pressure, in November 2005 Roche allowed Gilead to produce Tamiflu as well. Even so, it would take at least until late 2007 for Roche and Gilead to meet the orders of governments worldwide. The issue was a difficult one for Roche: What were the risks; what were the opportunities? If a pandemic occurred before sufficient stockpiles of Tamiflu had been built up, would Roche be held responsible? What steps, if any, should Roche take with respect to patent protection and production licensing in the shadow of a potential pandemic?

Because U.S. legislators are often most attentive to the issues raised by people who create jobs in their states, Bob Epstein, a local business owner, has been asked by activists to help lobby for a bill that would mandate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in California. Before deciding whether he should work to establish the business community's backing for this bill, Epstein must weigh the pros and cons of supporting measures that might put his business (and standing in the community) at risk.