Tag: discrimination

Posted on

There Isn’t a Magic Number of Racial Slurs an Employee Must Prove to Establish a Hostile Work Environment

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Jamie Ortiz (of Puerto Rican descent) worked for the Broward County, Florida, School Board in various capacities for nearly 20 years, including, from 2009 through 2017, as an auto mechanic in the district’s garage under the supervision of Michael Kriegel.

According to the testimony of both Ortiz and many of his co-workers, Kriegel had some issues with Puerto Ricans and other Hispanics, which he expressed to anyone who would listen, including Ortiz, on a daily basis.

  • Kriegel made offensive comments and jokes about Puerto Ricans, such as, “I’m around too many Puerto Ricans, I better carry my gun with me”; “we need to lock our toolboxes because we’re hiring too many Puerto Ricans”; “this New York Puerto Rican is on me”; “Puerto Ricans like to do their own thing, they don’t follow orders”; and “it ain’t right you Puerto Ricans are making more money than me.” Kriegel never used Ortiz’s name and instead called him “Puerto Rican.” Kriegel also used the ethnic slur “spic” “several times.”
  • Ortiz also testified that Kriegel harassed him “every day on any type of work order.” Kriegel would wait for him to finish his bus route and say things like, “your Puerto Rican ass think you can do whatever you want to do.” Another time, Kriegel criticized Ortiz for using a certain bus and stated that he was “going to write your Puerto Rican ass up.” Over Ortiz’s objections, these and other comments did not stop.
  • According to Ortiz’s coworkers, Kriegel used the terms “spic,” “lazy spic,” “knock-kneed spic,” “dumb spic,” and “wetback,” either specifically about Ortiz or about Hispanic people more generally. Kriegel also made other discriminatory comments, including “here comes the Puerto Rican gang, I need to call the cops”; “the damn Puerto Rican again, I’ve got to go see what this freakin’ Puerto Rican is doing, they’re all the same”; “I would rather have, you know, three more of these guys than a smelly Puerto Rican in here”; “spics come over here and they want to eat up all the benefits”; and “had a lot of niggers and spics apply, and we won’t need no more of them here.”

Amazingly, the district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Ortiz’s racial harassment claim. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, was not having it.

Here, a reasonable jury could conclude that Ortiz’s workplace was objectively hostile to a reasonable person in his position. First, for nearly a two-year period preceding Ortiz’s EEOC charge, the frequency of the harassment was daily or near daily. Ortiz reported that, from the beginning of 2013 through September of 2014, Kriegel made offensive comments and jokes every day about Puerto Ricans. Likewise, one of Ortiz’s coworkers stated that he heard discriminatory comments by Kriegel about people of Hispanic origin on a daily basis during the same time period. Other coworkers reporting hearing discriminatory comments on a less frequent but still regular basis. This evidence is not consistent with the type of “isolated” or “sporadic” conduct that is insufficient to meet Title VII’s threshold. Rather, it reflects a work environment “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.”

[T]here is no “‘magic number’ of racial or ethnic insults” that a plaintiff must prove. 


I am flabbergasted that a federal district court judge could conclude that these facts did not, as a matter of law, constitute a racially hostile work environment.

Indeed, I’d argue that even one “spic” or “wetback” is enough to create a hostile work environment. A daily barrage of these slurs is the definition of racially hostile work environment. Bravo to the appellate court for correcting a very poor decision.

Posted on

A Handy FAQ for Service Animals in the Workplace

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

A local Subway recently earned itself some bad publicity when an employee denied access to a customer with a service dog.

While this story involved a customer and not an employee, it did get me thinking about employee service dogs at work.

I created this handy FAQ on service dogs at work for your reference.

Q1:     What does the ADA say about service animals?

A1:     Believe it or not, Title I of the ADA (the part of the law that covers employers and employees) is completely silent on the issue of service dogs. Thus, because Title I does not specifically address service animals, an employer should consider a request from an employee to bring a service animal to work just like any other request for a reasonable accommodation. This means that employers must consider the request, but do not have to automatically allow employees to bring their service animals to work.

Q2:     What types of service animals does the ADA cover?

A2:     Only two species can ever qualify as service animals under the ADA—dogs and miniature horses. That’s it. Any other animal, even if trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, is not an animal for which the ADA requires the consideration of an accommodation.

Q3:     How should employers process requests for service animals by employees?

A3:     Because the ADA is silent on this issue, a request to bring a service animal to work is nothing more than a request by an employee for an employer to modify its no-animals-in-the-workplace policy. If you have such a policy, you must consider modifying the policy on a request-by-request, case-by-case basis. If you don’t have such a policy, and generally allow other employees to bring animals to work, then you should allow employees with disabilities to bring service animals.

Q4:     Must an employer allow service animals upon request, or can it offer other accommodations?

A4:     A disabled employee is entitled to a reasonable accommodation, not his or her preferred accommodation. Thus, if there exists another reasonable accommodation (other than an exception to your no-animals policy) that will enable the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job, then you can offer that accommodation in lieu of permitting a service animal. That said, because of the personal nature of a service animal, you should be prepared for the possibility that it might be the only reasonable accommodation in many instances.

Q5:     What kind of documentation can an employer seek from an employee in support of the request for a service animal at work?

A5:    When an employee with a disability requests the use of a service animal at work, the ADA grants the right to an employer to request medical documentation to support the need for the accommodation (if the need is not otherwise obvious; a blind employee should not need to prove the need for a seeing eye dog). Also, an employer has the right to request proof that the service animal is appropriately trained and will not disrupt the workplace.

Q6:     Can you require proof of certifications, vaccinations, or insurance coverage?

A6:     I would. Before being permitted to bring animals to work, owners (even those with disabilities and service animals) should verify that vaccinations are up to date, that the animal licensed and free of parasites and insects, and on regularly scheduled flea and tick preventatives. An employee should verify, in writing, sufficient homeowners’ or renters’ insurance to cover any damage to person or property caused by the animal. You could also consider indemnification in case your business gets sued, and a written paycheck deduction authorization for any damage caused (but I wonder if this could creep into the realm of discrimination or retaliation if you don’t require the same of other employees in similar circumstances.)

Q7:     Can I hold the animal to certain workplace standards?

A7:     Absolutely. I have no issues with requiring that all service animals be “office broken.” Animals with any bite history should not be permitted. Moreover, any aggressive behavior, such as growling, barking, chasing, or biting, should result in the animal’s expulsion on the first complaint. Animals should also be house broken, friendly towards people and other animals, and not protective of their owners or their owners’ spaces. Finally, you should define when animals must be leashed or otherwise restrained.

Q8:     Can an employer deny a request if certain areas are off limits, or to accommodation other employees with certain animal allergies or phobias?

A8:     No. If certain areas are off limits, for example, because of safety or other reasons, you just set rules and limits keeping the animal out of those areas. It’s not a reason to deny a request outright. Similarly, when you have When you have two people with disabilities, you don’t treat one as more important than the other. Instead, you work out a balance between each’s needs and accommodations.

Q9:     How you handle a service animal’s bathroom needs?

A9:     Designate a specific area outside for animals to go to the bathroom (preferably away from the entrances), and make sure pet owners understand that it is their responsibility (and only their responsibility) to clean up messes outside and accidents inside. You may, however, have to considering altering an employee’s break time(s), or providing additional breaks, to permit the disabled employee to care for the needs of his or her service animal.

Q10:     What about emotional support animals, and other animals not classified as “service” animals?

A10:     Emotional support animals, comfort animals, and therapy dogs are not service animals under the ADA. Thus, you have no duty to accommodate these requests.

These are not easy issues to work through. My recommendation is that you work with your employment counsel if you receive an accommodation request for a service animal from an employee.

Posted on

The 13th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Excoriating Executives

It’s been nearly a month since I posted the last nominee for 2019’s Worst Employer.

It’s not for lack of ideas; it’s just that the prior nominees have been so awful that the bar for qualification has been set pretty high. Thankfully, France TĂ©lĂ©com has come to the rescue.

What did the former top executives at France’s national phone company do to earn their nomination?

I’ll let the New York Times story take it from here:

The men — all former top executives at France’s giant telecom company — wanted to downsize the business by thousands of workers a decade ago. But they couldn’t fire most of them. The workers were state employees — employees for life — and therefore protected.

So the executives resolved to make life so unbearable that the workers would leave, prosecutors say. Instead, at least 35 employees — workers’ advocates say nearly double that number — committed suicide, feeling trapped, betrayed and despairing of ever finding new work in France’s immobile labor market. 


“They were stuck, cornered,” said Michel Ledoux, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers. “The only possibility was to make them leave, one way or another.”

Weeks of wrenching testimony about despairing employees who hanged themselves, immolated themselves, or threw themselves out of windows, under trains and off bridges and highway overpasses, have suggested that the former executives went very far in “pushing the company into the new century,” as corporate strategy dictated. 


“The company was going under and it didn’t even know it,” Mr. Lombard, the ex-chief executive, testified. “We could have gone about it much more gently if we hadn’t had the competition banging on our door.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Lombard, he was recorded saying in 2007 that he would reach the quota of layoffs “one way or another, by the window or by the door.” The window is what a number of the employees chose.

“This isn’t going to be lacework here,” Mr. Barberot said in 2007. “We’re going to put people in front of life’s realities.”

If you harass employees to the point of mass suicide in the name of layoffs, you might just be the worst employer of 2019.

Big thanks to Kelly Paxton for bringing this story to my attention.

Previous nominees:

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Philandering Pharmacist

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Little Rascal Racist

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is 
 the Barbarous Boss

The 4th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is
 the Flagrant Farmer

The 5th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is
 the Fishy Fishery 

The 6th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Diverse Discriminator

The 7th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Disability Debaser

The 8th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Lascivious Leader

The 9th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Fertile Firing

The 10th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Exorcising Employee

The 11th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the ****y Supervisor

The 12th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Disguised Doctor

Posted on

NLRB Offers Significant Guidance on Its New(ish) Employee Handbook Rules

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

It’s been just over 18 months since the National Labor Relations Board decided Boeing Co., perhaps its most significant decision in decades.

It rewrote more than a decade of precedent by overturning its Lutheran Heritage standard regarding when facially neutral employment policies violate the rights of employees to engage in concerted activity protected by section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.

In Boeing, the board scrapped Lutheran Heritage’s “reasonably construe” test (a work rule violates section 7 if an employee could “reasonably construe” an infringement of their section 7 rights) with a test that balances “asserted business justifications and the invasion of employee rights” by weighing “(i) the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights, and (ii) legitimate justifications associated with the requirement(s).” It was a huge win for employers drafting and issuing workplace policies.
In applying this balancing, the NLRB announced the three-tiered approach to analyzing the legality of employee handbook and other workplace rules.

Category 1: Rules that are Generally Lawful to Maintain, which, when reasonably interpreted, do not prohibit or interfere with the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act, or the business justification for which outweighs any potential adverse impact on protected rights

Category 2: Rules Warranting Individualized Scrutiny, which are not obviously lawful or unlawful, and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the rule would interfere with rights guaranteed by the NLRA, and if so, whether any adverse impact on those rights is outweighed by legitimate justifications.

Category 3: Rules that are Unlawful to Maintain, which are generally unlawful because they would prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on the rights guaranteed by the NLRA outweighs any justifications associated with the rule.

Last month, the NLRB Office of General Counsel released its advice memo in Coastal Shower Doors (curiously dated 8/30/2018), which passed judgment on the legality or illegality of 10 different handbook provisions under the Boeing standard.
    1. “Obtaining unauthorized confidential information pertaining to clients or employees.” Lawful Category 1 confidentiality rule.
    2. “Rude, discourteous or unbusinesslike behavior; creating a disturbance on Company premises or creating discord with clients or fellow employees.” Lawful Category 1 civility/disruptive-behavior policy.
    3. “Soliciting, collecting money, or distributing bills or pamphlets on Company property by employees during non-working time, including rest and meal periods, is not restricted so long as such activity is in good taste.” Lawful Category 1 solicitation/distribution policy.
    4. “Un-business-like conduct, on or off Company premises, which adversely affects the Company services, property, reputation or goodwill in the community, or interferes with work.” Lawful Category 1 on-duty conduct rule, and lawful Category 2 off-duty conduct rule.
    5. “
 all information gathered by, retained or generated by the Company is confidential. There shall be no disclosure of any confidential information to anyone outside the Company without the appropriate authorization. . . . nothing in this policy is intended to infringe upon employee rights under Section Seven (7) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).” Unlawful Category 3 rule.
    6. “Disparaging, abusive, profane, or offensive language (materials that would adversely or negatively reflect upon the Company or be contrary to the Company best interests) and any illegal activities—including piracy, cracking, extortion, blackmail, copyright infringement, and unauthorized access to any computers on the Internet or email—are forbidden.” Lawful Category 1 civility and on-duty misconduct rule.
    7. “Employees should refrain from posting derogatory information about the Company on any such sites and proceed with any grievances or complaints through the normal channels.” Unlawful Category 3 rule.
    8. “Employees may not post any statements, photographs, video, or audio that reasonably could be viewed as disparaging to employees.” Lawful Category 1 civility rule.
    9. “Employees may not post to any on-line forums 
 providing any Company telephone number or extension. Do not create a link from any personal blog, website or other social networking site to a Company website without identifying oneself as an employee of the Company.” Part lawful Category 1 rule (as to self-identification) , and part unlawful Category 2 rule (as to telephone number ban).
    10. “The use of personal cell phones or other mobile devices is prohibited during working hours for personal use, including phone calls, texting and downloading of web content.” Unlawful Category 2 rule.
This memo, which delves into a lot more detail on each of the 10 policies, is required reading for anyone drafting, rewriting or reviewing an employee handbook, and offers great insight into how the NLRB will judge policies under its relatively new Boeing test.
Posted on

Why Was a Stadium Full of People in France Chanting ‘EQUAL PAY’?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Indisputable fact No. 1: Women and men should earn the same pay for the same work.

Indisputable fact No. 2: The players on the United States women’s national soccer team earn substantially less than their counterparts on the men’s team

The Equal Pay Act requires that an employer pay its male and female employees equal pay for equal work. The jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal. Substantial equality is measured by job content, not job titles.

The Act is a strict liability law, which means that intent does not matter. If a woman is paid less than male for substantially similar work, then the law has been violated, regardless of the employer’s intent.

This strict liability, however, does not mean that pay disparities always equal liability. The Equal Pay Act has several built-in defenses, including seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, or any other factor other than sex.

Which brings us to indisputable fact No. 2, and the stadium chanting “equal pay.”

Two things of note happened in the U.S. soccer world on Sunday. The women won their fourth World Cup title, dominating the entire tournament, including the Netherlands 2-0 in the final. Meanwhile, the men lost the CONCACAF Gold Cup final 1-0 to Mexico.

The women’s team currently is engaged in a gender discrimination lawsuit against the United States Soccer Federation, claiming that the organization pays its male players way more than its female players. How much more? According to documents obtained by the Guardian, for example, each player on the U.S. women’s national team could receive more than $260,000 for winning the Women’s World Cup; each player on the men’s national team could earn more than four times that amount for winning the World Cup.

Last I checked, $260,869 does not equal $1,114,429. That’s a pay gap. Which could be legal under the Equal Pay Act, but only if it’s based on a factor other than sex. And this is where I plead ignorance. U.S. Soccer says that any pay differences are “based on differences in aggregated revenue.” I have no idea whether that’s true or false, but if true it might qualify as a “factor other than sex.”

What I do know, however, is that U.S. Soccer cannot justify these pay differences based on merit or success. The FIFA Women’s World Cup has been held eight times — the U.S. women’s team has won four of them, and has never placed worse than third. In the same time frame, the men’s team failed to even qualify for the 2018 World Cup and has never finished better than the quarter-finals (once, in 2002). The U.S. women have also won four Olympic gold medals, nine out of 10 CONCACAF Women’s Gold Cups, and are the No. 1 ranked team in world.

And, on the same day the women’s team won the World Cup, the men’s team lost the CONCACAF Gold Cup final (no offense to North American. Caribbean, and Central American soccer, but winning the CONCACAF Gold Cup is the equivalent of a AAA baseball team winning its league — it’s nice to win, but you’re not beating the best players on the best teams in world).

Based on results, it seems to me that not only should the women’s team be paid equally with the men’s team, but that there exists a great argument for the scale to be flipped, with the women’s team earning substantially more than do their male counterparts.

So, soccer fans and legal scholars, educate me. Why are the women paid so much less than the men?

I want to understand. Help me understand.

Posted on

There’s No Such Thing as ‘Reverse’ Discrimination

According to the New York Post, a Caucasian 20-year veteran attorney for the Legal Aid Society is suing her former employer for race discrimination. Among other issues in her lawsuit, she claims that she was denied a lateral move “because of ‘diversity considerations.’”
Do you know that some courts impose a different, higher legal standard for discrimination against white employees than for discrimination against African-American employees?

According to these courts, a non-minority employee asserting a claim of race discrimination must demonstrate background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

This is nonsense. Last I checked, EEOC is the “Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,” not the “Minority Employment Opportunity Commission.” A minority manager is just as capable of committing discrimination as a white manager. The law should not treat “reverse” discrimination any differently.

Discrimination is discrimination, period.

Applying different proof standards depending on the perpetrator of the alleged discrimination re-enforces the very stereotypes that our EEO laws intend to eradicate. Can we please remove from the law this idea of “reverse” discrimination, and just agree that discrimination is wrong regardless of the races of those accused of perpetrating it?

Also in The Practical Employer

The 12th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 

Does the Attorney-Client Privilege Protect Harassment Probes Conducted By a Lawyer?

Abortion Discrimination = Pregnancy Discrimination

Posted on

The 12th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Disguised Doctor

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Norma Melgoza, a longtime employee of Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, is suing her employer for sex discrimination and equal-pay violations stemming from a denied application for a promotion.

In support of her claim of glass ceiling gender bias, Melgoza points to certain misconduct of the interviewing physician. I’ll let the district court explain.

During an interview with one of Defendant’s doctors, she alleges the doctor wore “a Donald Trump mask” (the “Donald Trump Mask”), an act she described as “humiliating and offensive” to her, insofar as she inferred from this alleged act that the doctor (and, by extension, Defendant) “did not take her or her position seriously and thought nothing of impersonating a man who publicly antagonized Melgoza’s community [Mexican-American] and many members of her gender.”

For its part, the employer seized a Donald Trump mask from the physician’s office during its internal investigation of Melgoza’s allegations (although it claims that the actual look of the mask differs from Melgoza’s description of it).
Suffice it to say, if you wear a Donald Trump mask to conduct a job interview of a Mexican-American, female applicant, you might be the worst employer of 2019.

Also, thanks to this case I think I’ve discovered the trophy to present to this year’s winner.

Previous nominees:

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Philandering Pharmacist

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Little Rascal Racist

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is 
 the Barbarous Boss

The 4th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is
 the Flagrant Farmer

The 5th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is
 the Fishy Fishery 

The 6th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Diverse Discriminator

The 7th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Disability Debaser

The 8th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Lascivious Leader

The 9th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Fertile Firing

The 10th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the Exorcising Employee

The 11th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is 
 the ****y Supervisor

Posted on

What’s a Hostile Work Environment? You’ll Know It When You See It

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

“I know it when I see it.” These are the famous words of Justice Potter Stewart defining legal obscenity in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964).

I feel the same way about a hostile work environment. For a hostile work environment to be actionable, it must (among other factors) be objectivity hostile. What does this mean? It’s hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

For example, consider the case of Curtis Anthony, an African-American quality inspector for Boeing at its North Charleston, South Carolina, plant, sued his employer for allowing a racially hostile work environment.

According to ABC News, his allegations include white co-workers urinating in his seat and on his desk, leaving signs with the “n-word” near his workspace, and ultimately leaving a noose above his workspace. Boeing, for its part denies the allegations, stating that Boeing spokesperson wrote, that Anthony “is a valued Boeing South Carolina teammate, [and] there is no validity to his allegations.”

Bingo. Hostile work environment. I can’t necessarily define it, but I know it when I see it.

Regardless of whether an employee can hold you legally responsible for, let’s say, another employee peeing on his desk, why would let this misconduct go unchecked? Even if you think it’s just horseplay, you can’t ignore it.

If an employee complains about misconduct, your reaction should never be, “Well, I understand, but it’s not that bad, or at least not bad enough for you to sue us; now go back to work.” Your obligations as an employer-recipient of a complaint of workplace harassment never changes. Investigate and take prompt remedial action to reasonably ensure that the harassment stops and does not repeat.
Otherwise, you are setting yourself up for a very difficult and expensive lawsuit. In other words, urine trouble (sorry 
 not sorry).
Posted on

How Long of a Leash Must You Give an Employee Before Firing?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

When a client calls me to ask for advice about firing an employee, the first question I always ask is, “What does the employee’s file look like?”

I want to know if there exists a documented history of performance issues to justify the termination, and whether said issues are known and understood by the employee.

I ask these questions for two reasons:

    1. Can the employer objectively prove the misconduct to a judge or jury? Fact-finders want to see documentation, and if it’s lacking, they are more likely to believe that the misconduct was not bad enough to warrant documentation, or worse, that it did not occur. In either case, a judge or jury reaching this conclusion is bad news for an employer defending the termination in a lawsuit.
    2. Surprises cause bad feelings, which lead to lawsuits. If an employee has notice of the reasons causing the discharge, the employee is much less likely to sue. Sandbagged employees become angry ex-employees. You do not want angry ex-employees going to lawyers, especially when you lack the documentation to support the termination.

So what does quality documentation to support a termination look like? Consider Anderson v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (N.D. Ohio May 29, 2019)

Jason Anderson, African-American, claimed that GCRTA discriminated against him because of his race by denying him a promotion, issuing excessive discipline and ultimately terminating him. He lost. Why? Because his employer had a long and documented history of his performance and discipline issues.

  • On April 17, 2012, Anderson received a coaching for being involved in a preventable motor vehicle accident in an unmarked RTA Transit Police Vehicle.
  • On March 5, 2013, Anderson received a coaching for making disrespectful and unprofessional comments about a fellow officer over the police radio.
  • On August 14, 2014, Anderson received a coaching for failing to report to work for an overtime shift that Anderson had volunteered to work.
  • On January 1, 2015, Anderson received a coaching for neglecting his responsibilities as a first responder after witnessing a motor vehicle accident involving an RTA coach. Anderson continued driving rather than stopping to provide assistance to injured passengers.
  • On August 5, 2016, Anderson received a coaching for allowing a person to ride without proof of payment purchase or validation of fare and failing to take any enforcement action.
  • On August 5, 2016, Anderson received a First Written Warning for a disruptive, disrespectful and unprofessional outburst directed at Anderson’s supervising officer during the Republican National Convention. He yelled, among other things, “You disgust me. The very thought of you is disgusting to me and your presence sickens me.”
  • On January 25, 2017, Anderson received a coaching for failing to address the resistive and disorderly behavior of a fare violater at the Tower City Rapid Station.
  • On April 12, 2017, Anderson received a coaching for failing to attend to scheduled court appearances.
  • On May 30, 2017, Anderson received another First Written Reminder for violation of Employee Performance Code for failing to maintain control of a suspect following an investigative detention.
  • On June 13, 2017, Anderson was charged with multiple misdemeanors following an off-duty incident with his girlfriend during which he allegedly assaulted her while he had his loaded service weapon unsecured in their hotel room.
Based on this history, the court had little difficulty dismissing Anderson’s claims:

Plaintiff was issued three (3) First Written Warnings and (2) two non-disciplinary coachings, each based on a particular circumstance of Plaintiff’s problematic or violative conduct. Plaintiff provides no direct evidence to support a finding that his discipline or termination were made because of his race. Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate how any similarly situated employee received more favorable treatment. The record does however support a finding that GCRTA’s actions against Plaintiff were made for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons following Plaintiff’s unlawful conduct the morning of May 26, 2017 at the Double Tree Hotel.

This employer gave this employee a very long leash before ultimately terminating his employment. Your leash may not, and likely need not, be this long.
However, no matter the length of your leash, you must ensure it’s documented and communicated to the employee each step of the way. Otherwise, you are asking for a lawsuit and issues in said lawsuit post-termination.
Posted on

5 Myths Surrounding Women in the Indian Workplace

India women in the workplace

“If one man can destroy everything, why can’t one girl change it?” — Malala Yousafzai

Women in India constitute 48.4 percent as compared to 51.6 percent of men in the total Indian population of 1.37 billion people.India women in the workplace

A good ratio, right? Moreover, according to international non-governmental organization Catalyst, Indian women access higher education at the same rates as men at 27 percent.

But the ratios are not in favor of women when it comes to their participation in the workplace. Research by Catalyst notes that “only about 29 percent of Indian women work compared to 82 percent of Indian men.”

Indian women are in order first and foremost supposed to be a devoted wife, a doting mother and then a working professional. Women in India are expected to conform to traditional and societal norms.

Family always has to come before work. Women in India also have to be present and represent every ritual and cultural function conducted. And the older a female gets in India, the more she is bound in a “double burden syndrome” — balancing home and work.

But even women who get to join the workforce are not free of facing stereotypes and harassment. Women are rarely offered C-suite roles and similarly lofty positions.

There’s a lot that people hold against women in the workplace. It’s time to shatter the myths associated with women in the workplace and help increase their workplace participation.

Myth: Women Can’t Negotiate

The gender wage gap is the highest in India, according to Indian English-language daily Business Standard. Women in India are paid 34 percent less than what an Indian man is paid in the workplace, according to a research conducted by the International Labour Organization.

The prevailing explanation as to why women don’t earn as much as men is that “women aren’t aggressive enough.” People say that women don’t push their employers hard enough to give them a raise or that they can’t negotiate.

That’s not true. Women are as assertive as men when asking for salary appraisal. More and more studies in 2019 are showing that the rate of women and men asking for salary is the same. But, the conversion rates still favor male employees over women.

Myth: Too Emotional or Too Cold

In higher-level managerial positions, women often face a double bind. When they portray female characteristics, they are termed as emotional or sensitive. But when they follow traditional leadership roles, they are perceived as too difficult or too cold.

Lisa Feldman Barrett, the director of Northeastern University’s Interdisciplinary Affective Science Laboratory, said that emotions are not something that we are born with but are rather created according to circumstances. And in India, women are groomed to be delicate, fragile and sensitive to situations. Therefore, it can be said that portraying high emotional intelligence is not biological but rather a social construct.

Myth: Women Don’t Belong in STEM

According to UNESCO, only 30 percent of women in India participate in STEM-related fields in higher education. What’s more disheartening is that the dropout rate among women in technology is even higher in junior to midlevel positions. Across Asia, the dropout rate is 29 percent.

Another reason why women continue to remain underrepresented in STEM fields begins very early in childhood.

Women are associated with arts and languages and men with math and science. When given a mathematical examination, women are under a lot more pressure to succeed than men. When applying this institutional fear toward a workplace full of men, it adversely

Myth: Women Are Only Good at Soft Skills

This is a judgment held against women, especially in the engineering field. Soft skills involve communication, creativity, adaptability, flexibility and teamwork. These are skills that every individual who works with other people needs to possess irrespective of profession and gender. To be a successful engineer, one needs to have both technical as well as soft skills.

Myth: Sexual Harassment Is a Woman’s Issue

The number of registered cases against sexual harassment in the workplace increased 54 percent from 371 cases in 2014 to 570 in 2017, according to the independent Indian English-language news site Scroll.in. But, as it is in most cases, the majority of these reported cases were from women. Due to maximum cases being reported by women, people assume that women are subject to harassment and therefore it’s “their issue” and they should resolve it on their own.

Sexual harassment doesn’t limit itself to a gender. While it’s important to understand that, it’s also important for people to stand by each other when such cases are reported. Men and women should be allies when someone reports against a “higher-up” or report when they have witnessed something.

Instead of holding their social conditioning against them, let’s all try to build a workplace in India where everyone has the same opportunities and treatment irrespective of their gender.