1. Team 3: Karina Hernandez Alexandra Antonyuk Gaby Medina Mike Giang
CASE 3-8
Disclosure of Steve Jobs’s Health as Apple CEO: A Public or Private Matter?
Team 3:
Karina Hernandez
Alexandra Antonyuk
Gaby Medina
Mike Giang

2. Introduction:
Human babies born earlier than most placental mammals  longer completely dependent period
4th trimester
NINO
Should Apple disclose the health problems of its CEO, Steve Jobs.
Apples’s legal obligation for disclosure.
Apples’s ethical point of view for disclosure.

3. CONSIDER FACTS:
Apple Inc. is a publicly traded company with shareholders.
Steve Jobs is the creator and CEO of Apple.
October 2003, Steve diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.
Apple stock fell as he took leave of absences.
Steve died on October 05, 2011.

4. ASSESS ALTERNATIVES:
Steve could have not disclosed his health condition to Board Members or the public. Steve could have resigned to his position. Steve could have made Tim Cook new CEO, and him take on a smaller role in the company.

5. REVIEW RESOURCE:
• What would have been Apples’s consequences for invading his privacy without consent?
• Would it be ethical for Apple to evaluate situation with Steve and see what was more convenient for the company.

6. EVALUATE OUTCOMES:
If Apple disclosed Steve Jobs health problems, would Apple stock price fall ?
• If Apple disclose his health issues stock would fall like it did the first time by 2.4% and the third time by 17%.
• If Apple decided not to disclose Steve’s health problems, would they be acting unethical to their investors?

7. DECISION:
Were Steve’s public announcements for his leave of absences the right thing to do?
Was it the best decision for Apple, that Steve decided not to inform in detail the Board of Directors about his health?
How does this event shows Apple’s respect and loyalty for their employees?

8. CONSISTENCY:
What approach would apple take in the future for their CEO’S, will they require the to disclose more in detail any material health issues in order to avoid loosing investors or their stock price to loose value?

9. Accountability:
Investors had the right to be informed about the company’s CEO leave of absences, and who would be taking over operations meanwhile.
Investors had no legal right to be informed in detail about Steve Jobs health issues and procedures.

10. RATIONALITY:
Any investor would want to have all the information of the company to make their business decision.
Shareholders can assess whether the company might be adversely affected due to vacancy in leadership.

11. EQUITY:
When Steve Jobs decided to take leadership in the company there are ethics that everybody have to oblige by.
Steve Job is not above the ethics obligation.
Was it ethical for Steve to say his issues were related to “hormone in balance”, when he knew it was not.

12. CONCLUSION: