Managerial Ethics: Erin Brockovich
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 1
Unit 3 – Team B
Discussion Assignment
Managerial Ethics – MAN 5066
Page 2
Introduction
This movie is based on a true story…an incident involving a massive cover-up by a conglomerate, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Masry & Vititoe is a law firm in California representing seriously injured victims of negligence and corporate injustice and Erin Brockovich is one of their employees. They have a reputation as a leader in Environmental Tort cases, which a major part of their focus, but they also represent clients with Catastrophic Personal Injury, Traumatic Brain Injury, Product Liability and other types of Class Action matters throughout the country.
While doing her clerical duties, Erin Brockovich …show more content…
became nosy about one particular case involving real estate deals in Hinkley, California and mysterious sicknesses—these real estate files contained medical records. She had no judiciary training or expertise nor was she intimidated by complicated red tape and statutes. PG&E knowingly and willingly exposed the unsuspecting residents to hazardous chemicals.
Her obsessive inquiries, her tenacity to get some answers, and whose discoveries and simple logical interpretations encouraged the residents to stand up and take legal action led to the nation’s largest settlement in a direct-action lawsuit. PG&E hid the facts and had it not been for Erin Brockovich and one employee of PG&E, they would have probably gotten away with it. Instead of shredding all of the evidence, he said the papers looked like they might be worth something (since his brother-in-law had severe nose bleeds after using the chemicals). Hexavalent chromium (chrome 6) was
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 3
determined to be a cancer-causing chemical in the 1920s and exposure was known to be especially dangerous to lungs. These chemicals were being used back in the early 60s long before the EPA started monitoring hazardous chemical usage and disposal. Although the RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), which amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, set national goals for:
--Protecting human health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal. --Conserving energy and natural resources. --Reducing the amount of waste generated. --Ensuring that wastes are managed in an environmentally-sound manner.
In November 1984, Congress amended and strengthened the RCRA by the passing the Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). It wasn’t until the 1980s before they required permits for hazardous materials and about 10 years more before they monitored the disposal.
What was the end results for all parties? The end result for all parties in the Erin Brockovich case was the discovery that Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) had dumped over 370 million gallons of cancercausing chemicals into a local California community's ponds, which seriously infected over 600 residents. The people who lived in and around Hinkley, California, in the
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 4
1960's, 70's and 80's had been severely compromised by exposure to toxic Chromium 6. The Chromium 6 had leaked into the groundwater from the nearby Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Compressor Station. After approximately 3 - 4 years from the time of uncovering exposure of toxic Chromium 6 caused by PG&E, followed by approximately 1 million documents reviewed by the legal team, with over several hundred depositions, and approximately 650 plaintiffs joining in the lawsuit; a global settlement was reached in 1996:
1) $333 million in compensation to over 600 Hinkley residents 2) Requirement for PG & E to clean up the environment 3) Requirement for PG & E to stop using Chromium 6
PG & E wrote the big check and the residents in the lawsuit received a compensation for damages. With this being the largest settlement in US history against toxic pollution, it became a landmark for other plaintiffs in cases such as this in other areas. PG&E compensated more than 600 Hinkley residents in the amount of $333 million in damages.(Hinkley was not a class action lawsuit. Hinkley was a direct action lawsuit: each plaintiff was hurt as an individual. How long they lived in the contaminated plume and the seriousness of their injuries is what the judges based their individual awards on.) http://www.masryvititoe.com/erin_brockovich.shtml
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 5
Erin Brockovich received an enormous 2 million dollar bonus for her hard work on the case leading to the 333 million dollar case settlement with PG&E.
Ed Masry and the other attorneys received $133 million (40%) of the settlement, The Hinkley Plaintiffs received 196 million dollars to be divided amongst the victims. Although they did a huge amount of work and invested an extreme amount of time, the team feels that the attorneys’ compensation should be much less. We feel it should be reduced to 25% or $83 million. More should have been given to the residents for their medical expenses, which consisted of everything from uterine and breast cancer to birth defects, nosebleeds, rashes, immune disorders and miscarriages. Although some of the Plaintiffs were not satisfied with their portion of the settlement, it was not distributed as equal amounts. Some of the victims only received $60,000 and $80,000. However, some of the victims only had mild effects while others suffer with life-threatening and debilitating illnesses. Not to minimize the effects of a miscarriage or nosebleed, but compared to terminal cancer, there is a huge difference in the long- term expenses and the outcome. Summary of results The attorneys received $133 million (40%) of the settlement Erin Brockovich received a $2 million bonus. PG&E required to clean up the environment PG&E required to stop using chromium …show more content…
6.
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 6
What side would I take and why?
I would certainly take the side of the residents after hearing the evidence.
The residents were being harmed and were unaware while there was knowledge of this toxic pollutant by others (PG & E) and yet nothing was being done. Yes, the company continued to benefit from their processes while people in this residence were getting sick with respiratory problems that could possibly be linked to this pollutant (chromium 6). Not only were the residents being harmed, but there was harm to the environment. The evidence was revealed through much investigative work by the legal team and news sources. Just a few to mention: 1)In 1987 the company advised the State of California of the detection of Chromium 6 levels in ground water when a routine environment survey was done, but yet the company failed to identify the dangerous type of chromium when communicating to the residents about the findings. Also, on a different side of this revelation, according to the plaintiffs trail brief, the contamination was known as early as
1965.
2)Reports that were obtained showed data as far back as 1965 indicating PG&E found levels of chromium 6 being “400 times the EPA’s current safety standard”, http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials/erin_brockovich/erin_brockovich.htm
To continue explaining why I would take the side of the residents, while residents were being harmed and the company was making money; the company demonstrated no
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 7
ethical principles when the toxic pollutant was discovered. Did they owe the residents anything? What about the community? Was the company building a sense of community or were they destroying it (Religious injunctions)? Did they see the residents’ lives of little value to where they would rather hide the truth and bring harm (Distributive justice)? Did PG & E actions contribute to the greatest good for Hinkley’s residents (Utilitarian benefits) or to their own wallets. They wanted to maximize their profits at the expense of harming others. Where was the political system to protect these people and the environment? Not only do I see the failure of the company but also the political system. Where were the outside independent sources doing EPA studies instead of the company doing their own and hiding the results until things were revealed? Yes, $333 million seems a lot, but by the time the lawyers were paid, medical bills paid and ongoing medical bills to be paid, ongoing emotional and physical suffering, and trying to put lives back together for over 600 residents, it is only compensation to help. Yes, in lure of all this, my stand is for the residents and certainly for the verdict. I would have to side for the Hinkley Plaintiff’s because even though they received 196 million dollars to be divided among them, some of the Plaintiff’s were not happy with the settlement because they did not receive equal amounts and because some of the victims sustained life long illnesses. For example, some of the victims only received $60,000 and $80,000. In my opinion, that is not a fair amount to receive when you have been through major surgeries, treatments for a long length of time, etc. I do feel PG&E could have settled for a higher amount but that was not pursued any further after the 333 million dollars came back.
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 8
I would take the side of Masry & Vitto and the people of Hinkley, California. The reason I say this is because working in an environmental protection agency, I understand the need to protect the public from hazardous or potentially hazardous materials. I have seen first hand the end result of people being affected by pollutants being poured into their community. More recently we conducted a Cancer Investigation in a neighborhood that had petroleum products being leaked into their groundwater from the local public utility’s substation in the area. The primary drinking water source for all the residents was from wells and all residents in the area drank this polluted water for years. As a result several residents have died from cancer and many others are being diagnosed with cancer. I believe that we all have the right to have adequate natural resources and be able use them without the fear of those resources being poisoned from man-made sources. Also, I believe we each have a responsibility to ensure we do not abuse the resources, nor deprive others of their use. I choose to take the side of the residents Hinkley plaintiff’s. PG&E discovered in 1987 high levels of hexavalent chromium (chromium 6) stemming from their Gas Compressor Station located nearby Hinkley, California. After notifying the State of California, PG&E developed a plan to buy all property in the community that could be affected by the pollution, and provided broad information on its use of Chromium to residents in Hinkley. PG&E failed to inform Hinkley residents of the Chromium 6 contamination and the major side effects this contamination could induce.
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 9
This was negligence on behalf of PG&E, which contributed to rising health issues of Hinkley residents, most of which were reported to be respiratory complications. What PG&E did was unethical, and served injustice to the residents of Hinkley. Should residents have been made aware of the situation, suffering of Hinkley residents could have been prevented. These residents were not given a fair and just opportunity to remove themselves from the life altering situation.
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 10
Resources:
http://www.masryvititoe.com http://www.lawbuzz.com www.brockovich.com http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/01/01-02brockovich-qa.html http://www.paralegal-institute.com/erin.html http://www.brockovich.com/ http://www.brockovich.com/ http://www.masryvititoe.com/erin_brockovich.shtml http://www.ukcritic.com/erinbrockovich.html http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/laws-reg.htm#history http://www.masryvititoe.com/erin_brockovich.shtml http://www.fumento.com/erinwsj.html http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials/erin_brockovich/erin_brockovich.htm http://www.masryvititoe.com/erin_brockovich.shtml http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials/erin_brockovich/erin_brockovich.htm
Page 1
Unit 3 – Team B
Discussion Assignment
Managerial Ethics – MAN 5066
Page 2
Introduction
This movie is based on a true story…an incident involving a massive cover-up by a conglomerate, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Masry & Vititoe is a law firm in California representing seriously injured victims of negligence and corporate injustice and Erin Brockovich is one of their employees. They have a reputation as a leader in Environmental Tort cases, which a major part of their focus, but they also represent clients with Catastrophic Personal Injury, Traumatic Brain Injury, Product Liability and other types of Class Action matters throughout the country.
While doing her clerical duties, Erin Brockovich …show more content…
became nosy about one particular case involving real estate deals in Hinkley, California and mysterious sicknesses—these real estate files contained medical records. She had no judiciary training or expertise nor was she intimidated by complicated red tape and statutes. PG&E knowingly and willingly exposed the unsuspecting residents to hazardous chemicals.
Her obsessive inquiries, her tenacity to get some answers, and whose discoveries and simple logical interpretations encouraged the residents to stand up and take legal action led to the nation’s largest settlement in a direct-action lawsuit. PG&E hid the facts and had it not been for Erin Brockovich and one employee of PG&E, they would have probably gotten away with it. Instead of shredding all of the evidence, he said the papers looked like they might be worth something (since his brother-in-law had severe nose bleeds after using the chemicals). Hexavalent chromium (chrome 6) was
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 3
determined to be a cancer-causing chemical in the 1920s and exposure was known to be especially dangerous to lungs. These chemicals were being used back in the early 60s long before the EPA started monitoring hazardous chemical usage and disposal. Although the RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), which amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, set national goals for:
--Protecting human health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal. --Conserving energy and natural resources. --Reducing the amount of waste generated. --Ensuring that wastes are managed in an environmentally-sound manner.
In November 1984, Congress amended and strengthened the RCRA by the passing the Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). It wasn’t until the 1980s before they required permits for hazardous materials and about 10 years more before they monitored the disposal.
What was the end results for all parties? The end result for all parties in the Erin Brockovich case was the discovery that Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) had dumped over 370 million gallons of cancercausing chemicals into a local California community's ponds, which seriously infected over 600 residents. The people who lived in and around Hinkley, California, in the
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 4
1960's, 70's and 80's had been severely compromised by exposure to toxic Chromium 6. The Chromium 6 had leaked into the groundwater from the nearby Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Compressor Station. After approximately 3 - 4 years from the time of uncovering exposure of toxic Chromium 6 caused by PG&E, followed by approximately 1 million documents reviewed by the legal team, with over several hundred depositions, and approximately 650 plaintiffs joining in the lawsuit; a global settlement was reached in 1996:
1) $333 million in compensation to over 600 Hinkley residents 2) Requirement for PG & E to clean up the environment 3) Requirement for PG & E to stop using Chromium 6
PG & E wrote the big check and the residents in the lawsuit received a compensation for damages. With this being the largest settlement in US history against toxic pollution, it became a landmark for other plaintiffs in cases such as this in other areas. PG&E compensated more than 600 Hinkley residents in the amount of $333 million in damages.(Hinkley was not a class action lawsuit. Hinkley was a direct action lawsuit: each plaintiff was hurt as an individual. How long they lived in the contaminated plume and the seriousness of their injuries is what the judges based their individual awards on.) http://www.masryvititoe.com/erin_brockovich.shtml
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 5
Erin Brockovich received an enormous 2 million dollar bonus for her hard work on the case leading to the 333 million dollar case settlement with PG&E.
Ed Masry and the other attorneys received $133 million (40%) of the settlement, The Hinkley Plaintiffs received 196 million dollars to be divided amongst the victims. Although they did a huge amount of work and invested an extreme amount of time, the team feels that the attorneys’ compensation should be much less. We feel it should be reduced to 25% or $83 million. More should have been given to the residents for their medical expenses, which consisted of everything from uterine and breast cancer to birth defects, nosebleeds, rashes, immune disorders and miscarriages. Although some of the Plaintiffs were not satisfied with their portion of the settlement, it was not distributed as equal amounts. Some of the victims only received $60,000 and $80,000. However, some of the victims only had mild effects while others suffer with life-threatening and debilitating illnesses. Not to minimize the effects of a miscarriage or nosebleed, but compared to terminal cancer, there is a huge difference in the long- term expenses and the outcome. Summary of results The attorneys received $133 million (40%) of the settlement Erin Brockovich received a $2 million bonus. PG&E required to clean up the environment PG&E required to stop using chromium …show more content…
6.
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 6
What side would I take and why?
I would certainly take the side of the residents after hearing the evidence.
The residents were being harmed and were unaware while there was knowledge of this toxic pollutant by others (PG & E) and yet nothing was being done. Yes, the company continued to benefit from their processes while people in this residence were getting sick with respiratory problems that could possibly be linked to this pollutant (chromium 6). Not only were the residents being harmed, but there was harm to the environment. The evidence was revealed through much investigative work by the legal team and news sources. Just a few to mention: 1)In 1987 the company advised the State of California of the detection of Chromium 6 levels in ground water when a routine environment survey was done, but yet the company failed to identify the dangerous type of chromium when communicating to the residents about the findings. Also, on a different side of this revelation, according to the plaintiffs trail brief, the contamination was known as early as
1965.
2)Reports that were obtained showed data as far back as 1965 indicating PG&E found levels of chromium 6 being “400 times the EPA’s current safety standard”, http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials/erin_brockovich/erin_brockovich.htm
To continue explaining why I would take the side of the residents, while residents were being harmed and the company was making money; the company demonstrated no
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 7
ethical principles when the toxic pollutant was discovered. Did they owe the residents anything? What about the community? Was the company building a sense of community or were they destroying it (Religious injunctions)? Did they see the residents’ lives of little value to where they would rather hide the truth and bring harm (Distributive justice)? Did PG & E actions contribute to the greatest good for Hinkley’s residents (Utilitarian benefits) or to their own wallets. They wanted to maximize their profits at the expense of harming others. Where was the political system to protect these people and the environment? Not only do I see the failure of the company but also the political system. Where were the outside independent sources doing EPA studies instead of the company doing their own and hiding the results until things were revealed? Yes, $333 million seems a lot, but by the time the lawyers were paid, medical bills paid and ongoing medical bills to be paid, ongoing emotional and physical suffering, and trying to put lives back together for over 600 residents, it is only compensation to help. Yes, in lure of all this, my stand is for the residents and certainly for the verdict. I would have to side for the Hinkley Plaintiff’s because even though they received 196 million dollars to be divided among them, some of the Plaintiff’s were not happy with the settlement because they did not receive equal amounts and because some of the victims sustained life long illnesses. For example, some of the victims only received $60,000 and $80,000. In my opinion, that is not a fair amount to receive when you have been through major surgeries, treatments for a long length of time, etc. I do feel PG&E could have settled for a higher amount but that was not pursued any further after the 333 million dollars came back.
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 8
I would take the side of Masry & Vitto and the people of Hinkley, California. The reason I say this is because working in an environmental protection agency, I understand the need to protect the public from hazardous or potentially hazardous materials. I have seen first hand the end result of people being affected by pollutants being poured into their community. More recently we conducted a Cancer Investigation in a neighborhood that had petroleum products being leaked into their groundwater from the local public utility’s substation in the area. The primary drinking water source for all the residents was from wells and all residents in the area drank this polluted water for years. As a result several residents have died from cancer and many others are being diagnosed with cancer. I believe that we all have the right to have adequate natural resources and be able use them without the fear of those resources being poisoned from man-made sources. Also, I believe we each have a responsibility to ensure we do not abuse the resources, nor deprive others of their use. I choose to take the side of the residents Hinkley plaintiff’s. PG&E discovered in 1987 high levels of hexavalent chromium (chromium 6) stemming from their Gas Compressor Station located nearby Hinkley, California. After notifying the State of California, PG&E developed a plan to buy all property in the community that could be affected by the pollution, and provided broad information on its use of Chromium to residents in Hinkley. PG&E failed to inform Hinkley residents of the Chromium 6 contamination and the major side effects this contamination could induce.
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 9
This was negligence on behalf of PG&E, which contributed to rising health issues of Hinkley residents, most of which were reported to be respiratory complications. What PG&E did was unethical, and served injustice to the residents of Hinkley. Should residents have been made aware of the situation, suffering of Hinkley residents could have been prevented. These residents were not given a fair and just opportunity to remove themselves from the life altering situation.
Unit 3 Team B Discussion
Page 10
Resources:
http://www.masryvititoe.com http://www.lawbuzz.com www.brockovich.com http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/01/01-02brockovich-qa.html http://www.paralegal-institute.com/erin.html http://www.brockovich.com/ http://www.brockovich.com/ http://www.masryvititoe.com/erin_brockovich.shtml http://www.ukcritic.com/erinbrockovich.html http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/laws-reg.htm#history http://www.masryvititoe.com/erin_brockovich.shtml http://www.fumento.com/erinwsj.html http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials/erin_brockovich/erin_brockovich.htm http://www.masryvititoe.com/erin_brockovich.shtml http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials/erin_brockovich/erin_brockovich.htm