A Civil Action(1998)
Experiential Activity /
Introduction
For my experiential activity, I watched the movie, A Civil Action (1998), which is a fact based drama starring John Travolta as personal injury lawyer, Jan Schlichtmann, and the industrial pollution court case he fought on behalf of the residents of Woburn, Massachusettes in the 1980s. The movie revolves around the illegal dumping of the industrial chemical solvent, trichloroethylene,and how it contaminated the city’sdrinking water causing Leukemia, cancer and other health issues among the people of Woburn. There were 12 deaths (8 of them children) over 15 years from Leukemia. Anne Anderson, whose young son died of Leukemia, tries to file a case against whoever is responsible for these deaths. After being rejected by many firms, it ends up in the hands of Jan Schlichtmann, a successful personal injury lawyer in Boston.
Although Jan initially rejects the case seeing no big financial pay-off, he reconsiders after he realizesthat the polluted water in the river could be traced back to two wealthy parent companies, Beatrice Foods and W.R. Grace. The case ends up being very costly to try and plunges Jan’s small law firm deep into debt. Although the case was eventually settled for $8 million,Anne Anderson and the town people were not happy with the settlement as they did not get an apology from those responsible. Jan loses everything trying the case; his practice, his friends, his house and his car. After some time has passed, Jan uncovers additional evidence implicating J.R. Riley and Beatrice Foods. He forwards the new information along with the old case documents to the Environment Protection Agency (EPA)requesting that the EPA retry the case against the two companies. The case was later settled with W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods paying a very large sum of money to clean up the water and land in Woburn, Massachusettes.
Portrayal of Business
The movie portrays the business world in a very negative light. The entire movie is about a case against two big companies that were responsible for polluting the city’s drinking water. The movie shows how businesses only care about profits without any concern for the environment or people. The two local companies in Woburn, W.R. Grace and J Riley Leather, dumped toxic chemical solvents for many years and made no attempt to clean up or contain the toxic chemical waste that was labeled as probable carcinogen by the EPA. This shows negligence on the part of these businesses towards the environment and the local people. Their blatant negligence is further compounded by the fact that they were aware that the dumping of these chemicals was polluting the drinking water and causing very serious health issues including multiple deaths among the town’s residents. Furthermore, the businesses systematically tried to cover up these illegal activities.
The movie also portrays lawyers and the litigation process in a negative light. The main character in the movie, Jan Schlichtmann, rejects the case initially and only reconsiders his decision after he realizes that there might be defendants with “very deep pockets.” Anne Anderson and her neighbors were not interested in a financial settlement but rather wanted an apology from those responsible. But many law firms rejected the case because they did not see a potential big pay off. In the movie, even Jan states - “a lawyer who shares his client’s pain does a grave disservice to the clients. He should have his license to practice law taken away…” It illustrates Jan’s view that lawyers should be without any soul or empathy. Jan also says “the whole idea of a law suit is to settle or compel the other side to settle. You do that by spending more money than you should which forces them to spend more money than they should; whoever comes to their senses first loses…” This shows that in the litigation process, money matters more than the truth. Mr. Faber, a defense lawyer for Beatrice Foods, also says “the court is not a place to look for truth…” All these comments in the movie depict the corrupt nature of trials and litigations. Justice is not blind but rather bought by the highest bidder.
Business Ethical Dilemmas
1. Mr. Love and his ethical dilemma
The first ethical dilemma I see is when Mr. Love, an employee of W.R. Grace, struggles to decide whether he should come forward as an eye witness. He has eight kids and most of his kids are suffering from different health issues, which he believes is caused by the polluted drinking water. He also knows many of the neighbors including Anne Anderson who have lost their kids to Leukemia. He is aware that his employer, W.R. Grace, is responsible for polluting the city water. During a coffee break, he witnessed trucks from his company dumping barrels of solvents into a pit at the back of the plant. Although he knows what happened and who did it, he finds it very difficult to come forward as an eye witness against his own employer. At the end, he does come forward and his testimony helps the case against his employer, W.R. Grace.
In my opinion, Mr. Love did the right thing by disclosing what he witnessed even though he knew he would be ostracized by his co-workers (most of whom feigned ignorance) for being a “rat” and possibly lose his job. He acknowledged that his employer engaged in unethical conduct by dumping barrels of toxic solvent known to be probable carcinogen. By coming forward with this information, he helped his neighbors, his own family and the whole town of Woburn. I would have testified against my own company for the greater good of the community if I knew it was engaging in unethical conduct.
2. Jan and his ethical dilemma on case settlement
The second ethical dilemma I see is when Jan has to decide whether to settle the case knowing that his law firm is in deep debt and is struggling financially to continue. In order to build the case against the defendants, he spends thousands of dollars to hire experts from various fields to research and collect evidence. Jan and his partners are forced to mortgage their houses, cash out their retirement accounts and open multiple credit cards to keep the law firm running. During the middle of the trial, W.R. Grace shows an inclination to settle. At this meeting, Jan rejects the $25 million offer without consulting his partners and his clients. He also rejects a $20 million settlement offer from Beatrice Foods without consulting his partners and his clients. Eventually, they end up settling the case for $8 million, which is much less than the amounts offered before. Anne Anderson and the other families who lost their children were not happy since there was no formal apology and no money earmarked to clean up the water.
In my view, it was a very difficult issue. On one hand, I would have preferred to fight the case until justice was served. On the other hand, I do not know how Jan and his partners could have proceeded further with the case without the financial means to do so. They exhausted all the resources they had at their disposal. The big companies there were up against had more financial resources than they did. However, I feel that Jan hampered the case by letting his ego get in the way. I believe that Jan felt he had to prove himself in court against the big law firms and their lawyers with their Harvard degrees. Heshould not have unilaterally decided to reject the earlier offers. Jan should have settled the case sooner and then forwarded the case to the EPA to bring true justice for the people of Woburn.
3. Mr. Granger and his ethical dilemma
Mr. Granger, a driver of a local trucking company, was also faced with an ethical dilemma. He was hired by J. Riley Leather Company to drive the truck that dumped barrels of toxic solvents in the river. He knew that there was a case against J. Riley Leather Company but he never came forward as an eye witness during the entire trial process. After the case with W.R. Grace is settled, Jan stumbles upon the fact that J. Riley Leather did not dump the toxic waste itself but rather hired a 3rd party to do so. After further investigation, Jan uncovers the payments made to the trucking company. He confronts Mr. Granger, who finally discloses that Mr. Riley, the owner of J. Riley Leather Company, gave him a pair of Boston Celtics tickets and instructed him to “keep his mouth shut” about the transportation of the waste. Mr. Granger’s eventual testimony helps the EPA to retry Beatrice Foods, parent company of J. Riley Company, for environmental pollution.
In my view, Mr. Granger should have come forward as an eye witness when he knew there was an ongoing case against J. Riley. He should not have accepted the Celtics tickets and kept mum about what he knew for so long. Jan had an eye witness who came forward against W.R. Grace, but he did not have any eye witness against Beatrice Foods. The case against Beatrice Foods would have been much stronger and might not have been dismissed if Mr. Granger had come forward. If it were me, I would have declined the free tickets and come forward as an eye witness once the case was filed. However, I do understand how conflicted Mr. Granger was. J. Riley Company was the oldest surviving business in Woburn and had deep ties within the community. The company also employed many of the town’s residents and had stayed in Woburn while other companies had left. Mr. Grover must have felt some loyalty towards Mr. Riley and did not want to betray the local company. However, he should have put his reservations aside and come forward for the sake of the community, which had suffered greatly due to the side effects of the toxic waste he had dumped into the river.
Additional Business Ethics Issues
1. Chemical and Manufacturing plant and ethical issue
W.R. Grace and J. Riley Leather Company were both aware that the toxic solvents they disposed were probable carcinogen. They ignored this fact and did nothing to prevent the chemicals from contaminating the city’s drinking water. Furthermore, they tried to cover up their actions even while people were getting sick and dying. They should have taken responsibility and done everything in their power to clean up the water, but they chose not to. I believe Mr. Riley was an even worse offender as he was a 3rd generation business owner who had ties in the community. He knew the residents of Woburn, but still tried to cover up the disposal. During the trial, Mr. Riley blatantly lies while on the stand by professing to care for the community and its people.
2. The residents of Woburn and their ethical dilemma
I believe that the employees of J. Riley Leather Company must have struggled with whether to support their neighbors’ lawsuit against their company. I strongly believe that someone must have known something about the disposal of the toxic waste, but their sense of loyalty to their employer was strong enough that no one stepped forward. I also feel that this might have been heightened by their desire to save their livelihood. If their employer were to be found guilty, the company might have to close and they then might lose their jobs. I can understand their dilemma but for the greater good of the community, someone should have done the right thing.
Summary
Overall, watching the movie was a good way to learn about many ethical issues that occur in the real world. I learned a lot about civil action law suit and many ethical issues that can occur during the trial process. I now realize that lawyers and law processes are very expensive and that a lot of money is needed to fight a civil case against powerful defendants with deep pockets. It is very expensive for both the prosecutors and the defendants. I also learned it is important to look at the environmental impact of all corporate activities. Many big companies neglect the environmental side effect for the short term profit, but it ends up costing millions of dollars in law suits later on and may even drive the company out of business. It made me realize the importance of “Wingspread statement on the precautionary principle” which was defined as “when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” I also realized that it is not always easy to do the right thing as there are many consequences to your actions as portrayed in the movie. But at the end of day, no matter how difficult it is, it is our moral obligation to do what is ethical.
References
- Movie: A Civil Action (1998)
- Trust Us, We’re experts! – by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber