Sandra Procter$-$Murphy was fired from her job as mechanical engineer at Mesa Electronics in upstate SC and her supervisor wrote on the discharge report, $$Procter$-$Murphy is being terminated for poor work performance and excessive absenteeism$.$ Procter$-$Murphy believed, however, that she was discharged because of her repeated complaints of sexual harassment against Tom Margo, her department manager, and she sued the company, seeking reinstatement plus lost wages and benefits.

During preparation for trial, Mesa Electronics learned that, since her termination, Procter$-$Murphy had been using marijuana three or four times a month, information given to the company by several employees who knew Procter$-$Murphy on a personal basis. Mesa Electronics asked its attorney to introduce this new evidence as added support for the discharge, since Procter$-$Murphy$$s use of marijuana would have violated the organization$$s anti$-$drug policy had she still been employed.

In your evaluation of this scenario, answer the following questions:

Summarize the implications of Sandra Proctor$-$Murphy concerning the reasons she was terminated. Specifically, identify the critical issue being raised in terms of fair and equal treatment and the company's actions.

Should Mesa Electronics be allowed to introduce the evidence of marijuana use? Could Mesa rely on the reporting employees as witnesses? Explain fully to provide a rationale and support your responses.