Search results

1. Maria Jarlstrom, Essi Saru, and Sinikka Vanhala, “Sustainable Human Resource Management With Salience of Stakeholders: A Top Management Perspective,” Journal of Business Ethics, 152, (2008): 703–724. 2. Benjamin A. Neville, Simon J. Bell, and Gregory J., “Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool,” Journal of Business Ethics, 102, (2011): 357–378. 3. Mick Marchington, Fang Lee Cooke, and Gail Hebson. “Human Resource Management Across Organizational Boundaries,” Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management, (2009): 460–477.

This secondary source case is based mainly on three documents: the 20-page report by a labor union, Unite Here, titled “One Job Should Be Enough: Inequality at Starbucks”; and two reports by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. and Covington & Burlington, LLP.

In February 2020, Unite Here, a labor union, released a damming report about employment practices at the airport Starbucks stores operated by licensee, HMSHost. Among other charges, the report identified several instances of racial and gender discrimination that HMSHost dismissed as a ploy by a union intent on organizing its employees. The adverse publicity, however, put Starbucks Corporation in the spotlight because of the company’s publicly stated commitment to workplace equality. The recently hired Nzinga Shaw, the company’s first-ever Global Chief Inclusion and Diversity Officer, had to address the issue at HMSHost lest it adversely affect Starbucks’ reputation as a progressive employer.

The case is best suited for a graduate or undergraduate course in human resource management or labor relations. As diversity is typically covered in the first third of such courses, the ideal placement of this case would be in the early part of the course. As Starbucks is a well-known name, and it is very likely that students have had their own experience with Starbucks, as either a customer or an employee, the case is likely to draw their interest.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

Human resource management

This case is suitable for use for advanced-level undergraduate students (e.g. in their third or fourth year of study) and graduate-level students enrolled in human resource management, industrial relations, organizational behavior and legal courses (e.g. business law and ethics, employment law). It can be used also in training courses and sexual harassment workshops for employees, particularly those with supervisory responsibilities or who are involved in personnel, training, or industrial relations activities. The case has been class tested with MBA students enrolled in a course on organizational behavior.

In March 2014, William Wong, the CEO of Zejaya Corporation faced a dilemma. He had just been told some disturbing news about Larry Pang, his executive director, which may or may not have legal implications for the company in relation to sexual harassment. Two of his managers had confided in him that Linda Tan, one of his managers who had recently resigned, had asked them to tell him about Pang's repeated attempts to court her in the past several months. He was undecided on how he should handle the problem.

This case was developed for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a management situation. The case provides students the opportunity to learn about the potential ethical and legal issues surrounding workplace romance and sexual harassment at work.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

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.