JACR is a publication of the Southwest Case Research Association (SWCRA). JACR publishes teaching cases in all business disciplines. Cases may be grounded in primary and/or secondary data sources. Whether primary or secondary, sources must be well documented.
The Safety of the Flying Public: The Boeing Company and the Federal Aviation Administration Versus the National Transportation Safety Board
This description based case examines the conflict between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) following a series of fires on board the new Boeing 787 aircraft. The case focuses on two aviation oversight agencies – the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board – and their respective roles, domains, and constraints. The divergence of the roles of these two federal agencies and their respective and differing reactions to fires in the Boeing aircraft. The case leverages capture theory to explore government-business interactions.
It is suggested that this case be used in conjunction with the case shown below: “Soaring Ambitions and Hard Realities: The Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Flight Safety”( http://swcra.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/V15N1a_Soaring_Ambitions_Case.pdf ) although it can be effectively used independently.
Soaring Ambitions and Hard Realities: The Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Flight Safety
The case follows the situation faced by several commercial airline companies operating Boeing 787 Dreamliners when fires occurred in the electrical systems aboard the aircrafts as well as the difficulties encountered by Boeing and its supply chain in both determining the cause(s) and devising solutions. The case is an example of Boeing’s utilization of institutional isomorphism in copying the Toyota Production System (TPS). The case illustrates Boeing’s lack of full understanding of the TPS approach as well as Boeing and its supply chain partners’ inability to fully diagnose and correct a serious safety problem.
Outsmarting the Fox: Gretchen Carlson, Sexual Harassment and a Pre-suit Arbitration Clause
Carlson was a long-term Fox News personality, who co-anchored the “Fox and Friends” morning show for many years, before being removed from that show in 2013 and reassigned as an afternoon news anchor. In June 2016, Carlson’s contract was not renewed and she was immediately fired, whereupon two weeks later she filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Roger Ailes – but did not sue Fox News, Ailes’s and her former employer. This intentional strategy was made to avoid the implementation of the mandatory arbitration clause Fox News inserts as standard practice in the contracts of its on-air talent. These pre-suit arbitration clauses in employment contracts seek to accomplish what all arbitration clauses seek: avoiding the time, costs, and publicity of resolving a legal dispute in the court system.
Due to the publicity avalanche caused by so many current and former Fox News female employees going public with their own harassment stories after Carlson’s suit was filed, Fox paid Carlson $20 million and publicly apologized to her. Gretchen Carlson has since crusaded against sexual harassment and mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts, some have questioned whether pre-suit arbitration clauses should be allowed in employment contracts, even though courts have repeatedly enforced them as being within the clear objectives of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of 1925.