Skip to content

Workforce

Tag: discrimination

Posted on February 1, 2021

How many N-words create a hostile work environment?

Supreme Court

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to answer these questions:

  • Whether an employee’s exposure to the N-word in the workplace is severe enough to send his Title VII hostile-work-environment claim to a trier of fact.
  • Whether and in what circumstances racial epithets in the workplace are “extremely serious” incidents sufficient to create a hostile work environment under Title VII, rather than nonactionable “mere utterances.”

These questions stem from Collier v. Dallas County Hosp. Dist. (5th Cir. 2020), which held that an African-American employee had failed to create a question of fact for a jury on his race-based hostile work environment claim based on his allegation that he had seen the one instance of the N-word scrawled on the wall of the hospital in which he worked (along with a pair of swastikas

While recognizing the offensiveness of the graffiti, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Collier’s harassment claim.

Though disturbing, the particular facts of this case … are insufficient to establish a hostile work environment under our precedent. For example, we have found that the oral utterance of the N-word and other racially derogatory terms, even in the presence of the plaintiff, may be insufficient to establish a hostile work environment. …

The conduct that Collier complains of was not physically threatening, was not directed at him (except for the nurse’s comment), and did not unreasonably interfere with his work performance. In fact, Collier admitted that the graffiti interfered with his work performance by only one percent. Moreover, Collier does not argue that he felt humiliated by the graffiti, nor would the record support such an assertion. Accordingly, on the record before us, Collier’s hostile-work-environment claim fails because it was not “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”

We do not yet know if the Supreme Court will take up this issue, which remains split among the various appellate circuits. Regardless of your potential liability, however, if the N-word rears its head in your workplace, you have one, and only one, appropriate response. Stop it from happening again, period. Investigate and if you can determine the responsible party, terminate. If you can’t determine the responsible party, send a strong and clear message to all employees that such language and misconduct is not tolerated, and offenders will be terminated.

All employees have the right to work in an environment in which they feel safe and free from the risk of harm. That word creates the exact opposite environment, and should never be allowed. Hard stop.

Posted on December 14, 2020December 14, 2020

If you’re tired of reading about the Worst Employer voting, you can now hear me talk about it

Marc Alifanz and Kate Bischoff are two of my favorite people. They also happen to host one of my favorite podcasts, Hostile Work Environment. I promise that I’m not just dishing out these high praises because Marc and Kate invited me to guest on this week’s episode to discuss the 10 nominees for this year’s Worst Employer poll.

You can listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you choose to get your podcasts. (And while you’re there do us all a favor and click that subscribe button if you already haven’t.)

This post also serves as your final warning to get in your vote for this year’s nominees. Polls close at 11:59 p.m. Wednesday, Dec. 16. Over 1,000 of you have already voted (thank you!), and the margins (at least in the COVID-19 category) are razor-thin. A few votes either way could literally decide this year’s winner. Make sure your voice is heard. No whining about the results if you don’t vote.

Voting is available at this link. Remember that this year’s vote is different than years past in that we have two categories — Worst Employer and Worst Employer COVID-19 Edition. In each category, you rank each of the five nominees from 1 (worst) to 5 (least worst). Ranking all five is important because the relative rankings count in the final tally.

The polls are open until 11:59 p.m. Wednesday, Dec. 16, and I’ll announce the winners (err … losers) early next week. Continued bad luck to all of this year’s very worthy nominees.

Posted on November 16, 2020June 29, 2023

The 11th nominee for the Worst Employer of 2020 is … the horrific human traffickers

gavel, legal, OSHA

Today’s nominee for the Worst Employer of 2020 is beyond description. NBC Bay Area provides the details:

A Gilroy (CA) couple has been charged with human trafficking after forcing a man to work 15-hour shifts seven days a week for no pay at their liquor store and then locking him inside the store overnight, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office said Monday.

The victim slept in a storage room and bathed in a mop bucket, authorities said.

Amarjit and Balwinder Mann, both 66, allegedly threatened the victim with deportation if he reported them to law enforcement. The Manns have been charged with felony human trafficking, witness intimidation and wage theft involving four victims, the DA’s office said. They face prison time if convicted.…

The victim had flown from India in 2019 expecting to travel to the U.S. with the couple. Instead, the Manns took his money and passport and put him to work without pay or a key to leave the store at night, investigators said.

You’d think I’d be numb to these atrocities by this point, but this level of cruelty just leaves me speechless.


Voting for this year’s Worst Employer will open on Dec. 1. This year, however, we will have two categories and two winners—The Worst Employer of 2020, and the Worst COVID Employer of 2020. Please come back then to make sure to cast your ballot.

Posted on October 29, 2020June 29, 2023

The rundown on wage law compliance: What organizations should know

wage and hour law compliance, wages

Paying people properly is crucial to workforce management. But it goes beyond releasing pay on time. It’s about compensating workers according to the work they do and adhering to all the wage laws that apply — and there are many that organizations need to navigate. 

Andrew Stirling, head of product compliance at Workforce.com, sheds light on what companies need to know about complying with wage laws, the real cost of failure to comply and the different ways organizations can meet requirements under varying rules and regulations. 

Setting a compliance strategy

“To have a compliance strategy, you need to start by knowing what the rules are. That might sound trite, but you need a system for keeping current as the rules change,” Stirling said. 

Businesses are generally good at evolving their practices in the face of law and regulation changes. While there’s a level of adjustment when new laws are implemented, companies tend to adapt efficiently, he explained.

Identifying the type of employment relationship a business has with its workers is crucial to getting the rules right. This has become more important as the types of work relationships have multiplied.

“With the gig economy growing, more and more workers are being engaged to work in nontraditional ways. Generally, a worker in your business will be either an employee or an independent contractor. Businesses need to be careful to assign workers to the right category, because getting this wrong means that they may not meet all the wage laws that apply,” said Stirling. 

Once the rules are known, it’s time for the business to assess and implement solutions to comply with those rules. The solutions can be more than just the obvious.

For example, employee scheduling can play a key role in wage compliance. When creating schedules, managers need to be aware of when overtime will apply and how much the business must pay for those hours when it does. This becomes challenging for managers with a group of employees under different working arrangements. Without good solutions, things can fall through the cracks, resulting in underpayment or higher labor costs.

The real cost of noncompliance

Noncompliance can result in crippling financial repercussions, but it also can cause reputational damage.

“The financial costs of noncompliance are obvious,” Stirling said. “For example, if employees have been underpaid, the business might have to make large amounts of back payments in one hit. You need to have the cash on hand for that.” There are other financial costs, like penalties and legal costs to contest a court case.

But there’s also the real potential for reputational damage. That’s often a more significant motivation for employers to comply.

“An underpayment scandal can bring companies to their knees. Customers can decide to take their business elsewhere. People are less likely to visit a restaurant or shop that has been reported for underpaying their people,” he said. 

Aside from a less favorable customer perspective, companies with underpayment issues can risk losing in the labor market, he said. When looking for a job, people tend to sort out who the good and bad players are, and wage compliance can be a huge factor.

Ensuring compliance at all levels

While wage compliance may mostly be seen as a job for payroll teams, HR and managers also play a crucial role. Payroll teams would primarily be responsible for the final pay outcome.

“From a payroll perspective, I would be focused on two things. One is making sure that I understand the complex wage rules that apply. The second thing is making sure that I have the correct data. Am I getting the information that I need to properly calculate pay? Are we capturing time and attendance accurately? Yes, knowing the rules are important, but the inputs need to be correct, too,” Stirling said.

HR has a leading role here. They need to have a good understanding of the business and the particular wage rules that apply. It’s also their responsibility to ensure that the right systems are in place for wage compliance. 

wage law compliance“In my experience, HR will often document the duties of a position and then help to assign those duties to a particular minimum wage,” Stirling explained.

Managers, meanwhile, have a role in ensuring that all inputs are correct. They monitor that employees are recording time correctly and that there are no discrepancies.

“If rules in a particular jurisdiction require employees to be paid more for doing particular types of work, managers are the ones who will know,” he said. The extra payments might include allowances, commissions, bonuses and tips to the extent that they are relevant in a jurisdiction.

Managers generally play less of a role in ensuring the amount on a paycheck is correct. Still, they follow processes and systems that ensure all the information passed on to payroll is accurate. 

Compliance challenges per industry

Different industries face varying compliance challenges. A lot of this difference comes from meeting customer demand or expectations.

If customer demand comes in after standard business hours and on weekends, that’s when employees need to be at work. Working outside standard business hours often will entitle an employee to overtime or other financial obligations.

“If you’re in retail or hospitality, you’d miss out on opportunities if you just open from 9 to 5. Efficient workforce management can meet these demands with cost-effective shifts without compromising service and wage law compliance,” he said. 

Similar issues arise in industries that make use of machines and equipment that are most efficiently run 24/7. Mining, oil and gas, and manufacturing companies often run this way. Stirling said that this scenario also puts businesses in a space where they pay different penalties that come with varying shifts and work hours.

On the other hand, there are many industries where working standard office hours is still the norm. “Calculating pay for people who get to work at 9 in the morning and leave at 5 in the afternoon is usually relatively easy,” he said.

Ways to stay at pace with labor law changes

There are many moving parts involved with wage law compliance, and staying on pace is crucial. 

“Going to the source is always best. That’s a good start,” Stirling said. He advised signing up for government websites that explain what the law is. Businesses can often sign up for alerts to be updated should any of the laws change.

There are also subscription services to stay abreast of the labor law, including publications and journals. Another option is to join employer associations that can help keep track of changes as well. 

Overcoming wage compliance challenges 

Having the right people, implementing the right systems, and investing in the right technology — Stirling believes that these things can help businesses comply with wage laws. 

Computers are binary and will give an output based on the input. Automated compliance is more efficient and effective than human-driven compliance. Companies must implement the right systems to make sure that both people and technology can function effectively. 

“I’m a big believer in technology as a solution to a lot of these problems,” he said. “That’s where the future is. As technology becomes more powerful, the types of work that people are doing will change. They’ll spend less time crunching numbers, for example, to make sure pays are right and spend more time checking that the inputs into the technology are right.”

Posted on October 26, 2020June 29, 2023

Results — Would you boycott a business based on the candidate it supports?

employee activism

The results are. Thank you to the 244 of you took the time to answer my question: Would you boycott a business based on the candidate whom it (or, more accurately, its ownership) supports for President in this election?

The results:

Yes = 58.6%
No = 41.4%

The comments, however, are more interesting than the results themselves. Here’s a sample.

  • I would boycott a business that supports Trump because he is a racist and anyone (owner of a company included) who supports him signals, to me, that they are fine with racism.
  • I did it with Chik-fil-a because of their stance on LGBTQ so I would definitely do it if I knew they were supporting a racist / conspiracy theory promoting candidate.
  • This election is more than just politics- the candidates have different morals. I want to make sure where I work and who I work with have similar morals to myself.

vs.

  • I prefer to base my business selections on the quality of the products/services offered.
  • It’s time to calm the rhetoric. And that means if someone has a product or service I want, and they didn’t vote the way I liked, I should still buy the product/service. Why? Because that’s the only way to keep America working.

vs.

  • You can’t preach tolerance and then boycott people who don’t agree with you.
  • We need to be tolerant of others’ views- just basic civility. I’m a democrat and Biden supporter and I still feel this way.

vs.

  • This is the start of a slippery slope. First it is the candidate they support, then it is whether they like homosexuals, then it is whether they support abortions then it is whether they like Jews or Muslims or whatever, then it is whether they like whites, blacks or green people. This is how Hitler started.
  • I am tired of boycotts and cancel culture. This has gotten out of control.
  • That’s fascism.
Such a fascinating conversation that I’d never thought about approaching before this year’s election, which is as much (or more) about values than it is about candidates, issues, or ideologies.
I’ll leave you with this thought. No matter the candidate you support or lean towards (or against), please just vote!
Posted on October 8, 2020October 8, 2020

Crying ‘discrimination’ because you refuse to wear a mask isn’t just silly, it’s offensive

COVID-19, coronavirus, public health crisis

Please watch this short video and then let’s talk.

Entitled anti-masker says “I am discriminated against every single day in my county now… sometimes multiple times a day.” GOOD pic.twitter.com/WmCWlAaDqD

— Fifty Shades of Whey (@davenewworld_2) October 6, 2020

This woman claims discrimination because she refuses to wear a mask in public.

“Stand back,” and “You don’t care about other people,” are just a couple of the attacks this woman has received because she refuses to cover her mouth and nose.

Technically, this is discrimination in that she is being treated differently than mask-compliant folks. But this isn’t Discrimination.

The type of discrimination we worry about is the invidious discrimination individual suffer because of some innate trait over which they have no control and/or a fundamental individual liberty—race, sex/gender, LGBTQ status, religion, national origin, disability, age, etc.

The type of this discrimination about which this woman is complaining is discrimination of her own choice—her selfish choice to purposely avoid and ignore the most basic of safety and health measures everyone (or at least everyone with common sense and a rational belief in science) agrees is necessary to protect us during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Discrimination against marginalized groups is a major problem in our country. Let’s not trivialize it by elevating these complaints to its level.

Posted on September 29, 2020June 29, 2023

The 9th nominee for the Worst Employer of 2020 is … the COVID denier

COVID-19, workforce management WFM 2.0, ethics

The human resources manager for a New Hampshire company is suing her former employer after she sent an email about COVID-19 to employees and required two employees to stay home for one week after going on vacations to China and Malaysia.

She claims company officials told her she was being fired for “exaggerating ‘the China Virus.’”

The New Hampshire Union Leader has the details:

Debra Di Nola worked for Freudenberg-NOK Sealing Technologies Inc., a German company, since 2014. …

On Jan. 29, two managers asked Di Nola to advise them on two employees returning from China and Malaysia, respectively, out of concerns about COVID-19. After looking into recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the state Department of Health and Human Services, Di Nola required the two employees to stay home for a week, according to the suit.

Di Nola claims a vice president of the company said “he could not work with her and did not trust her” during a meeting on Feb. 11. She was asked to leave.

“(The vice president) accused Dr. Di Nola of exaggerating ‘the China virus,’” the suit reads.

A few days later — Feb. 17 — the vice president fired Di Nola. The suit claims the vice president escorted Di Nola out of the building as other employees arrived for work.

For its part, the employer claims that it fired Di Nola for legitimate non-discriminatory performance reasons, including her lack of attention to detail, her relationship with a subordinate, her lack of engagement with employees and her repeated exaggerations and misrepresentations.
Nevertheless, if you fire an employee for exaggerating “the China virus,” you might be the worst employer of 2020.
Posted on September 25, 2020

Comorbidities, COVID-19, and your employees

health care, employee health

Let’s talk about comorbidities. A comorbidity is the simultaneous presence of two chronic diseases or conditions in a patient. In the case of COVID-19, certain comorbidities are known to increase one’s risk for a more severe illness.

According to the CDC, people with any of the following underlying medical conditions are at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19:

  • Cancer
  • Chronic kidney disease
  • COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
  • Immunocompromised state (weakened immune system) from solid organ transplant
  • Obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 30 or higher)
  • Serious heart conditions, such as heart failure, coronary artery disease, or cardiomyopathies
  • Sickle cell disease
  • Type 2 diabetes mellitus

Additionally, people with any the following might be at an increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19:

  • Asthma (moderate-to-severe)
  • Cerebrovascular disease (affects blood vessels and blood supply to the brain)
  • Cystic fibrosis
  • Hypertension or high blood pressure
  • Immunocompromised state (weakened immune system) from blood or bone marrow transplant, immune deficiencies, HIV, use of corticosteroids, or use of other immune weakening medicines
  • Neurologic conditions, such as dementia
  • Liver disease
  • Pregnancy
  • Pulmonary fibrosis (having damaged or scarred lung tissues)
  • Thalassemia (a type of blood disorder)
  • Type 1 diabetes mellitus
What does this mean for you and your employees? It means that for the duration of this pandemic, you likely need to maintain two sets of work rules—one for employees with comorbidities and one for those without. Employees with one of the listed underlying disabilities (or pregnant employees) might need an exception in an in-person work requirement or attendance policy, a separate work area, or more frequent breaks to remove a mask.
It does not, mean, however, that you can force or mandate a separate set of rules on disabled or pregnant employees who do not request them. The law does not allow employers to impose paternalist policies on these employees. In fact, the workplace discrimination hate paternalism. Good intentions do not excuse discrimination. An employer acting from a place of good intentions to protect disabled or pregnant workers from a potentially deadly exposure of COVID-19 is still discriminating if that’s not the employee’s choice. Only the employee can make that choice.
Posted on September 8, 2020October 7, 2021

Diversity training is the opposite of ‘anti-American’

diversity

Late last week, Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, issued a memo directing that from this point forward, the federal government will spend zero federal dollars for diversity training for its employees. Why? Because President Trump has concluded that diversity training is “divisive, anti-American propaganda.”

According to the memo, “All agencies are directed to begin to identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on ‘critical race theory,’ ‘white privilege,’ or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil.”

It continues, “[A]ll agencies should begin to identify all available avenues within the law to cancel any such contracts and/or to divert Federal dollars away from these un-American propaganda training sessions.”

Diversity training is the opposite of anti-American, and canceling it will only serve to drive us further apart. We need to teach differences, not hide from them.

We as a nation are more divided than we have ever been during my lifetime. In fact, I’d argue that we are more divided than we’ve been since the Civil War.

Race continues to be the line that divides us the most. Ignoring this issue won’t fix the problem, and likely will only make it worse. We will not fix America’s race problem by pretending that it doesn’t exist. Not only does it exist, but it is perhaps that which defines us best as American. Our nation is one with an unnerving history of slavery, which has caused 155 years (and counting) of race relations problems.

Germany, for example, does not pretend that Holocaust never happened. Instead, it reckons with its horrific past by teaching the Holocaust in its schools and making illegal Nazi symbols and language. Yet, some of us Americans still want to whitewash our history and fly Confederate flags. We don’t fix out race problems by pretending they don’t exist or aren’t problems at all.

Employee diversity training is critically important, perhaps now more than ever. We all should be committed to the cause of fair and equal treatment of all Americans. Canceling diversity training, however, is a big step in the wrong direction away from the goal of equality for all.

Posted on August 31, 2020August 31, 2020

Court finds no cause of action when employer watches employee give a urine sample for a drug test

gavel, legal, OSHA

Is the privacy of an at-will private-sector employee invaded when a representative of the employer watches him or her give a urine sample for a workplace drug test?

On Aug. 27, in Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court answered this question in the negative.

The facts of the case are not complicated. Sterilite required “direct observation” of its employees providing a urine sample pursuant to its reasonable suspicion and random workplace drug-testing policy. It sends an individual of the same sex to accompany the to-be-tested employee into a restroom to visually observe the employee producing the sample. Its goal is to prevent the employee from cheating the drug test.

Two years ago, the appellate court held that employees “have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to exposure of their genitals,” and that “the compelled exposure of their genitals and compelled urination before a stranger intruded upon that privacy.”

The Ohio Supreme Court, in a narrow 4-3 decision, disagreed.

[W]e recognize that workplace drug-testing policies implicate employees’ privacy interests.… [T]he facts in the complaint demonstrate appellees did consent to the use of the direct-observation method. …

[W]hen appellees individually reported for the collection of their urine samples, they were advised by the same-sex monitor that the direct observation method would be used. At that time appellees had a second opportunity—consent or refuse—and appellees consented by their action. …

Sterlite had the right to condition employment on consent to drug testing under the direct-observation method, appellees had the right to refuse to submit to the direct-observation method, and because appellees were at-will employees, Sterilite had the right to terminate their employment for their failure to submit. Because Sterilite had the legal right to terminate appellees’ employment at any time, appellees’ argument that their consent was involuntary because of their fear of termination necessarily fails. …

When an at-will employee consents, without objection, to the collection of the employee’s urine sample under the direct-observation method, the at-will employee has no cause of action for common-law invasion of privacy.

In other words, employees voluntarily consented to the “direct observation” by submitting to the drug screen instead of quitting their jobs or refusing and being fired. While I certainly understand the at-will nature of their jobs, I’m troubled by the fact that direct observation was imposed across the board, without limitation for the specific interest the employer was trying to uphold (i.e., employee cheating).
Thus, what advice would I provide if a client asks me about implementing a “direct observation” policy?
  1. I’d ask, “Why?” What are you trying to achieve? Are there less obtrusive means available to prevent employees from cheating a drug test (e.g., searches before they enter the restroom, pat-downs, etc.)? Does it make more sense to limit direct observation to situations in which you have a reasonable suspicion of cheating?
  2. Make sure all employees have notice of the direct observation and when you might use it. Put it in your drug-testing policy, and have employees sign off on it as an express condition of employment. With notice and consent, they can’t complain about any invasion of privacy (legal or illegal), as they’ve voluntarily given up that right.
Just because Ohio’s Supreme Court gave a thumbs-up to Sterilite’s policy in this case does not mean that the policy makes for a good HR practice that you should adopt. Instead, consider the specific goals you hope to advance with your drug-testing policy, and tailor it accordingly.

Posts navigation

Page 1 Page 2 … Page 11 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress