Titan Distribution Inc. had subcontracted with a company that provided employees, but Titan later decided to hire its own employees and end the subcontracting contract. Robert Chalfant worked for the subcontracted company, and when Titan made this change, Chalfant sought the same position with Titan that he had held while employed by the subcontractor. Although Titan initially indicated that Chalfant passed his physical examination and would be hired, the company subsequently decided that he failed the physical and did not hire him. The evidence indicated that Titan mistakenly believed that Chalfant’s physical ailments substantially limited his ability to work, that he previously performed and remained able to perform the functions of the job, and that the refusal to hire him on the basis of the allegedly failed physical was linked to his disability. Further, Titan’s inconsistent and unexplained decision-making process, with knowledge of the federal discrimination laws, was sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. Later you will learn about discrimination, but right now, consider the ethical issues of this case. What values are at odds in the dilemma outlined in this case? [Chalfant v. Titan Distribution, Inc., 475 F.3d 982 (2007).]