-Classwork - Nov 21,2021 John Spratt is the human resources director of StarCo Lid., a company with annual revenue of $575 million. After many years of trying, John feels he has gained the trust of the entire StarCo workforce because of his absolute impartiality in applying the various rules related to employee benefits. Recently, a female employee, Jean Wakabiashi, with whom he has begun to form a romantic relationship, has applied for a benefit under the firm's additional health coverage, but she does not technically qualify. Nevertheless, a little untruth (less than that even - simply withholding of a certain fact) would fix everything and provide benefit. The benefit is for Jean's autistic child. While direct treatment costs are claimable under the provincial health care program, Jean cannot afford the additional home help and time off work. This additional home help and earnings support is the extra benefit that has been applied for. John is torn because on one hand, he feels partly responsible for the deficiency in StarCo's additional health plan that would deny Jean the coverage, and because he believes Jan has a very strong moral case and genuine need. On the other hand, he has always believed in following the rules and he has always dealt on a completely open and honest basis with the insurer. What should John do? Response This case is designed to provide students with a dilemma where a member of the management of a company is forced to choose between lying and doing the humane thing and not lying and causing a colleague financial and emotional hardship. There are a number of ways to approach this case and here is one potential way. The Five Step Approach Identify ethical issues Identify stakeholders Identify alternative courses of action Identify effects/consequences of each alternative 5. Decision