chapter 8:
>
> *
Homework: Ch08: Exercises 2, 4, & 5
>
> 2. The IFAC Code of Ethics prohibits professional
accountants from
> engaging in marketing pro- motions that “bring the
profession into
> disre- pute.” This prohibition encompasses “disparaging
remarks .
> . . to the work of others.” a. Do you believe that such
a provision
> should be part of a professional code of conduct? b.
The AICPA Code of
> Conduct does not have a similar provision. Can you
think of reasons
> why such a provision is not in effect in the United
States
>
> 4. In a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Price
Waterhouse, CPAs v.
> Hopkins, a senior accountant was denied a promotion to
partner at a
> major CPA firm because, according to one evaluation,
she needed to
> “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more
femininely,
> wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.”
Others
> expressed more general criticisms that she was rude,
impatient, and
> excessively demanding. When Ms. Hopkins sued under
Title VII of the
> Civil Rights Act of 1964, the CPA firm defended its
actions, claim-
> ing that Ms. Hopkins’s overly aggressive personality
gave it
> sufficient grounds for denying her a promo- tion. Did
the CPA firm
> commit sex discrimination?
>
> 5.5. To gain an advantage over its rivals, Rushtalent,
Inc., a local
> corporation, interviews candidates for its accounting
department as
> early as possible in the campus recruiting process.
Once it has
> identi- fied suitable candidates, it makes them
generous job offers
> that expire two weeks after the date on which these
offers are made.
> The company is “infamous” on campus for never extending
the
> deadline on these offers. As a result, students have to
make employ-
> ment decisions with this company before they have had a
chance to
> interview with, and possibly receive offers from, other
recruiters.
> The head of Rushtal- ent, Inc.’s accounting department
formulated
> this job offer policy, and she is a member of the
AICPA. Is she
> committing a discreditable act?
