From an egalitarian perspective, which holds that all stakeholders are given roughly equal treatment (Arneson, 2002) bribery is wrong, on two levels. The first is that it creates an unequal playing field within the oil industry between firms that adhere to the law and firms that do not. The second is that it favors some foreign employees for unlawful financial gain while others do not receive the same treatment.

The liner situation is egalitarian in that all customers are being put at risk equally. The family situation has some egalitarian issues, since the location has been framed by the couple as a choice between mutually exclusive options.

The three perspectives all point to Jacob leaving Richardson. The company's lack of ethics has corrupted Jacob already, but he can set the situation right by moving onwards. If Jacob feels that he has an implicit contract with his wife not to leave Texas, then he must search for work within the state, but even...

Jacob's best course of action, therefore, is to leave Richardson as soon as possible. The environment at that company is toxic for him, and he may be cut by the future owners anyway. He has a duty to protect the interests of his family, which should guide him during his negotiations with the new employer, but all forms of ethics demand that he remove himself from Richardson as soon as possible.
Works Cited:

Bailes, R. (2006). Facilitation payments: Culturally acceptable or unacceptably corrupt? Business Ethics: A European Review. Vol. 15, 3, 293-298.

Alexander, L. & Moore, M. (2007). Deontological ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved November 22, 2009 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

Arneson, R. (2002). Egalitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved November 23, 2009 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/