Please identify the most ethical solution to the below scenarios and the possible alternatives identified, using one of the following concepts: consequentialism, enlightened egoism, utilitarianism, non-consequentialism, relativism, and distributive, procedural, or interactional justice. The context of these scenarios is that the employee has found out she has a life-threatening condition which causes thickening of the heart, and her doctor has advised her to avoid high intensity work, however the employee works in a warehouse and her job involves significant heavy lifting of product. The chief operating officer inadvertently overheard the employee discussing the matter with a contractor of the company and is asking the others in the management team for advice. We could fire Olga to save her life. She’d earn unemployment while she transitions to another job that isn’t so stressful to her heart. You know that her dad owns that small computer repair company. Maybe she can work for him and live a longer life because she wouldn’t be doing stressful lifting anymore." "But isn’t it illegal to fire someone based on a medical screening test?" Nicole asked. "You know, Olga and her doctor discussed that very thing," Trevor continued. "But get this—the doctor told her it was illegal, but she’s wrong—it’s not illegal for us because we have fewer than 15 employees. The law they’re talking about is one of those laws that doesn’t apply to small businesses like us." Jack interrupted, "But we do have 15 employees." Trevor replied, "No, Monica and Stuart are contractors. I did that on purpose, so they don’t count as employees. That way this genetic law and 100 others don’t apply to us." "Geez," Jack followed, "that makes me so uncomfortable that we can get away with doing something like this because of a legal technicality."