| Course | BU 106 Introduction to Business |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Business ethics case |
| Length | About 1,030 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Business Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 106 Unit 7
A Substitute Tortilla, a Sesame Warning and a Regular Customer at 5:40 p.m.: A Business Ethics Case for a Shift Manager
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 106: Introduction to Business
Instructor Name
February 26, 2026
A Substitute Tortilla, a Sesame Warning and a Regular Customer at 5:40 p.m.: A Business Ethics Case for a Shift Manager
The Facts, Retold
Dana is the evening shift manager at a composite fast-casual Mexican restaurant, part of a regional chain. At 4 p.m., the distributor's delivery arrives with a substitute brand of flour tortillas because the usual brand is out of stock. The case label says the tortillas "may contain sesame." The chain's online allergen chart, which customers use to decide what they can eat, lists all tortillas as free of sesame. At 5:40 p.m., in the middle of the dinner rush, a regular customer whom Dana knows has a sesame allergy orders a burrito and says, as always, that he checked the chart.
What is treated as fact: the substitution, the label's wording, the chart's claim, and the customer's allergy and reliance on the chart. What will be inferred: how likely the tortillas are to contain sesame, since "may contain" is a precautionary warning that the product was made in a facility or on equipment where sesame is present, not a statement that sesame is in the product.
Sorting What Is and Is Not an Ethical Question
Much of what makes this moment hard is not ethical. The rush is a timing problem: a conversation slows the line. The possible lost sale is a cost problem: the customer may leave. Calling the district manager at dinner is an inconvenience. Whether to pull all the substitute tortillas off the line tonight is partly an operational question about whether the restaurant has anything else to use. None of these, alone, is a question of right and wrong.
Part of it is ethical, and it is narrower than it first looks: the customer is relying on information the company published, that information is now false for this restaurant tonight, and Dana is the only person who knows it.
The Obligations, Named
A duty of honesty to the customer. The chain made a specific statement, that its tortillas are sesame-free, and invited customers to rely on it. When a representative of the company knows that statement is no longer true, continuing to let a customer rely on it is a form of deception by silence.
A responsibility for the customer's safety. Sesame is one of the major food allergens defined in federal food law (21 U.S.C. § 321). For people with a true sesame allergy, reactions can be severe: in a national survey, between about a quarter and more than a third of people with a convincing sesame allergy reported a past severe reaction (Warren et al., 2019). The risk from a precautionary label may be small, but the consequence of being wrong can be serious, and the customer, not Dana, bears it.
Two Courses of Action
Course A: tell him. Dana tells the customer that tonight's tortillas are a substitute with a sesame warning, offers a burrito bowl, which uses no tortilla, and takes the substitution warning to the rest of the shift so that anyone asking about sesame gets the same answer. Dana then calls the district manager so the chart can be corrected or a notice posted. Effects: the customer can make his own choice with accurate information; the line slows for a minute; the restaurant may lose a sale; the chain learns its chart is out of date.
Course B: say nothing. Dana reasons that "may contain" is only a precaution, that the chart is corporate's responsibility, and that the rush makes a conversation impractical. Effects: the line keeps moving; the customer eats a product the company told him was safe for him, on the company's word; if he reacts, the chain's statement and Dana's silence are both part of the cause; and other sesame-allergic customers are exposed the same way until someone notices.
Decision
Course A. The deciding reason is that the customer is relying on the company's own statement, and Dana knows it is wrong. Course B does not reduce the risk; it transfers the whole risk to the one person who cannot see it. The costs of Course A are small and temporary: a minute of delay and possibly one lost sale. The course text describes ethical business behavior as including honesty and fairness toward customers, especially where they depend on what the business tells them (Gitman et al., 2018). This is that situation in its simplest form.
Course A also serves the business. A chain whose allergen information cannot be trusted loses exactly the customers who check it most carefully, and a single serious reaction linked to a false chart would cost far more than a lost burrito. The follow-up matters as much as the conversation: Dana's call should lead the chain to add a rule that any ingredient substitution triggers a check against the allergen chart before the product is used, so the next shift manager does not face the same moment.
Testing the Decision
Two quick tests support the choice. The first asks whether Dana would be comfortable if the decision were described on the local news the next day. "A manager warned an allergic customer about a substitute ingredient and offered him a bowl instead" is a story any company would accept. "A manager knew the allergen chart was wrong and served an allergic customer anyway because the restaurant was busy" is a story that ends careers and damages brands. The second test reverses the roles: if Dana had the allergy and the manager knew the chart was wrong, Dana would expect to be told. A choice that fails both tests, as Course B does, is hard to defend however reasonable its reasons sound in the moment.
The decision also has limits worth stating. Dana should not guess at the actual risk or promise that the bowl is completely safe, because Dana does not know what else in the kitchen might contain sesame. The honest message is narrow: tonight's tortillas carry a sesame warning that the chart does not show, here is what we know, and here is an option without the tortilla. The customer, who knows his own allergy far better than Dana does, makes the final choice.
References
Definitions; generally, 21 U.S.C. § 321 (2025).
Gitman, L. J., McDaniel, C., Shah, A., Reece, M., Koffel, L., Talsma, B., & Hyatt, J. C. (2018). Introduction to business. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-business
Warren, C. M., Chadha, A. S., Sicherer, S. H., Jiang, J., & Gupta, R. S. (2019). Prevalence and severity of sesame allergy in the United States. JAMA Network Open, 2(8), Article e199144. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9144
BU 106 Unit 7 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 7 asks you to analyze a business ethics case and reach a decision. Expect to retell the facts, separate ethical questions from practical ones, name the obligations involved, compare at least two courses of action, decide and test the decision. Students often ask how to keep the analysis from being opinion. Name specific duties, such as honesty, safety or fairness, and the people owed each one. Separate pressures like time and cost from the ethical issue, since they matter but do not decide it. Compare real options, including the tempting one. Explain the deciding reason in one sentence. Test the decision with a simple check, such as whether you would defend it publicly.
Inside the BU 106 Unit 7 example
The case opens with Dana, the delivery and the substitute tortillas' sesame warning. It then introduces the regular customer who has a sesame allergy and always orders a burrito. The sorting section explains that the rush and a possible lost sale are timing and cost problems rather than ethical ones. The obligations section names honesty to the customer, the duty not to expose him to a known risk and duties to the employer. Course A has Dana tell the customer and offer a burrito bowl; Course B says nothing. The decision section explains why staying silent shifts the whole risk to the one person who cannot see it. The tests section applies the news test and a role reversal.
Reading the BU 106 Unit 7 rubric
Herzing's rubric for a business ethics case usually covers the facts, separation of ethical and practical issues, obligations, options, the decision and testing. Naming specific obligations and the people owed them carries the most weight, because that is what turns an ethics paper from opinion into reasoning. Fact points reward a fair retelling. Sorting criteria look for practical pressures kept apart from duties. Option credit goes to at least two real choices, including the tempting one. Decision points reward a clear deciding reason. Tests should be simple and applied honestly. Gitman's course text, the federal food definitions at 21 U.S.C. § 321 and Warren's study of adult food allergy prevalence support the case.
Common BU 106 Unit 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Ethics cases in BU 106 Unit 7 frequently go wrong when the writer jumps to a decision without naming the obligations. Another frequent problem is treating every pressure, such as time or cost, as an ethical issue. Students often compare only the right answer with an obviously wrong one. The deciding reason is missing or buried. Tests are skipped. Duties to the employer are ignored. The facts are changed to make the choice easier. The customer's perspective is not considered. Finally, say why one option wins in a single sentence, because graders reward reasoning a manager could explain to a customer and a supervisor alike.
Get a BU 106 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 7 instructions and the BU 106 rubric with the scenario your classroom supplies. We write a custom example that restates the facts, separates the business questions from the ethical one, names the obligation, weighs two options against the people affected and admits the cost of the choice. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 106 papers and business management samples
- BU 106 Unit 1: Business environment discussion
- BU 106 Unit 2: Forms of ownership paper
- BU 106 Unit 3: Management and organization paper
- BU 106 Unit 4: Marketing analysis
- BU 106 Unit 5: Operations or supply paper
- BU 106 Unit 6: Finance fundamentals exercise
- BU 106 Unit 8: Company analysis with recommendation
- BU 321 Unit 7: Regression output interpretation
- BU 380 Unit 7: Governance and obligations memo
- BU 421 Unit 7: Quality control chart record
- BU 423 Unit 7: Funding option comparison
BU 106 Unit 7 questions, answered
How much ethical theory does this unit expect?
Less than students assume. An introductory case is usually graded on noticing that an obligation exists and reasoning about it clearly, not on running a named framework, which is ground a dedicated ethics course covers. If your instructions name an approach from the reading, use it and keep it brief. Otherwise spend the words on the facts and the people in them.
Can I use something that happened at my job?
No, and this is worth being firm about. What a colleague did, what a manager told you, a complaint a customer made, a document out of an internal system: none of it is yours to submit, and a graded paper is published to at least one reader. Build a composite situation with the same shape, say it is composite, and the analysis scores identically.
Does the paper have to pick a side?
In almost every section, yes. The weighing earns the marks but the decision is what shows the weighing finished. Pick the course you can defend from the obligation you named, state it plainly, and then say what it costs and who bears that cost. A paper laying out both options and stopping reads as unfinished rather than as balanced.
Where can I find a free BU 106 Unit 7 sample paper?
The full BU 106 Unit 7 business ethics case is free on this page, a shift manager's choice about a sesame warning with obligations, options and tests. A case analysis on another dilemma can be written to order.
How do you analyze a business ethics case?
Retell the facts, separate practical pressures from ethical duties, name who is owed what, compare real options, decide with one clear reason and test the decision. This sample works through each step.