A Competitive Coup in the In-Flight Magazine. When the manager for market intelligence of AutoCorp, a major automotive manufacturer, boarded the plane in Chicago, her mind was on shrinking market share and late product announcements. As she settled back to enjoy the remains of a hectic day, she reached for the in-flight magazine. It was jammed into the seat pocket in front of her. Crammed into this already tiny space was a report with a competitor’s logo, marked “Confidential—Restricted Circula- tion.” It contained a description of new product announce- ments for the next two years. Not only was it intended for a small circle of senior executives, but it also answered the ques- tions she had recently proposed to an external research firm.
The proposal for the solicited research could be can- celed. Her research budget, already savaged, could be saved. She was home free, legally and career-wise. She foresaw only one problem. In the last few months, AutoCorp’s newly hired ethicist had revised the firm’s Busi- ness Conduct Guidelines. They now required company em- ployees in possession of a competitor’s information to return it or face dismissal. But it was still a draft and not formally approved. She had the rest of the flight to decide whether to return the document to the airline or slip it into her briefcase.
the commission. The group’s claims were that the boaters (1) spent thousands of dollars on community goods and services, (2) did not create the litter, and (3) were being unjustly penal- ized because the commission’s fact finding was flawed. With the last claim in mind, the boaters flooded the city with public record requests. The clerks reported that some weeks the requests were one per day. Under continued pressure, the city attorney hired a private investigator (PI) to infiltrate Boaters Inc. to collect information. He rationalized this on the grounds that the boaters had challenged the city’s grant applications in order to “blackmail the city into dropping plans to regulate the boaters.” The PI posed as a college student and worked for a time in the home of the boater organization’s sponsor while help- ing with mailings. Despite the PI’s inability to corroborate the city attorney’s theory, he recommended conducting a background investigation on the organization’s principal, an employee of a tabloid newspaper. (The FBI, on request of city or county police organizations, generally performs back- ground investigations.)
The PI was not a boating enthusiast and soon drew sus- picion. Simultaneously, the organization turned up the heat on the city by requesting what amounted to 5,000 pages of information—“studies and all related documents containing the word ‘boat.’” Failing to get a response from Miro Beach, the boaters filed suit under the Florida Public Records Act. By this time, the city had spent $20,000.
The case stalled, went to appeal, and was settled in favor of the boaters. A year later, the organization’s principal filed an invasion of privacy and slander suit against the city attorney, the PI, and the PI’s firm. After six months, the suit was amended to include the city itself and sought $1 million in punitive damages.
What are the most prudent decisions she can make about her responsibilities to herself and others?
What are the implications of those decisions even if there is no violation of law or regulation
1 answer
1 answer