Skip to content

Workforce

Tag: discrimination

Posted on April 15, 2019June 29, 2023

Firing an Employee Because of His Heart Problems? Rethink That One

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Jonathan Baum worked as a scheduler for Metro Restoration Services.

In late 2014, he began to suffer cardiac problems. Over the course of the next several months, he went to the ER fearing a heart attack, had a heart catheter implanted, had an echocardiogram and wore a heart monitor. He occasionally also missed work for medical tests and treatments and sometimes worked remotely. His boss, and the owner of Metro, Patrick Cahill, was aware of Baum’s medical issues.

Following a work day on which Baum had worked remotely from his home, Cahill fired him. The expressly stated reason: “health issues and doctors’ appointments.”

Oops.

Baum then sued for disability discrimination.

Even with all of Baum’s cardiac issues, the 6th Circuit held that he could not establish that he suffered a physical impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities. Therefore, Baum did have a legally protected actual disability. Baum had failed to identify a medical expert to testify and establish whether his cardiac problems substantially limit his cardiovascular and circulatory functions.

So do Baum’s impairments limit his cardiovascular and circulatory functions? They might. But to conclude that they did, a jury would need to understand them—how they function, and what that means for Baum. And to understand them, jurors would need an opinion from someone with “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge”: expert testimony.

Because Baum failed to disclose his doctor—or anyone else with specialized medical knowledge—as an expert witness, he lacks the evidence he needs. And without that evidence, he hasn’t created a factual issue over whether he is actually disabled.

Case closed, right? Not so fast.

The ADA does not only protect actual disabilities, but also perceived disabilities. On this latter claim, Metro had a huge problem.

Unlike actual disability claims, an employee proceeding on a claim of perceived disability need not prove a limitation of a major life activity, but only that the employer took an adverse action “because of an actual or perceived physical … impairment.” Thus, the lack of a medical expert was not fatal to this claim.

Baum argues that a jury could find that Metro fired him because Cahill thought Baum was disabled. For support, he relies on Cahill’s knowledge of Baum’s catheter, CAT scan, trip to the ER, and period where he wore a heart monitor. Baum also points to Cahill’s stated reason for firing him: his “health issues and doctor’s appointments.” …

Cahill’s knowledge of Baum’s medical issues—alone—is insufficient to carry the day.… But Baum has more—he has Cahill’s stated reason for firing him: his “health issues and doctor’s appointments.” That statement is what creates a factual dispute and makes it material. Giving Baum the benefit of the doubt, a jury could find that Cahill meant what he said. And if a jury so found, it could also find that Cahill perceived Baum to have a physical impairment and fired Baum because of that perception.

In other words, employers, it’s not the best idea to tell your employee that you are firing them because of their medical issue. It will not end well for you.

Posted on April 8, 2019June 29, 2023

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

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Is it too early to declare a winner for 2019’s contest?

According to the complaint Jason Fields filed against the Hazard, Kentucky, Hampton Inn at which he worked, and its manager, Sharon Lindon, he had to endure some pretty odd stuff during his employment.

As he tells his story, Lindon decided to help Fields after she learned of his impending divorce. How? By offering to exorcise him.

I can’t do this story any better justice than how Field’s describes it in his lawsuit:

Lindon told the Plaintiff that the reason for his marital problems was that he had demons.

Lindon told the Plaintiff that if he were going to work for her he had to be cleansed.

Lindon told the Plaintiff she had been cleansed three or four times and it was similar to an exorcism.

The Plaintiff was also given a packet of papers by Lindon to be completed and turned in. The packet contained 1 page of instructions, 2 pages containing a release and indemnity agreement, and 9 pages of questions.…

The Plaintiff was told once he had completed the questionnaire, he would need to meet Lindon at the church and have a cleansing performed.…

The Plaintiff refused to participate in any exorcism.

After the Plaintiff refused to complete the form, and then after he completed it, but refused to give it to Lindon, and then refused to participate in a cleansing, (1) his shift was changed, (2) his job duties changed, (3) he was not allowed to take his days off, (4) he was threatened daily concerning the loss of his job, and (5) he did not receive a raise.     

Fields ultimately quit.

What information did Lindon pressure Fields to provide? 

For starters, workplace-inappropriate information about his religious beliefs and practices:

  • What is your church background?
  • Briefly explain your conversion experience.
  • In one word, who is Jesus Christ to you?
  • What does the blood of Calvary mean to you?
  • What is your prayer life like?
  • Were you conceived out of wedlock?

And then stuff just got weird:

  • Have you, your parents or grandparents been in any cults?
  • Have you ever made a pact with the devil?
  • Have you ever visited heathen temples?
  • Do you have any witches, such as “good luck kitchen witches,” in your home?

And then downright off-the-rails offensive:

  • Do you have lustful thoughts?
  • To your knowledge, was their evidence of lust in your family line?
  • Do you frequently masturbate?
  • Have you ever been a victim of incest by a family member?
  • Have you ever committed incest, rape or molested anyone?
  • Have you ever committed fornication, adultery, been with prostitutes, had homosexual or lesbian desires or experience?
  • Have you ever sexually fantasized about an animal?
  • Have you been in involved in oral or anal sex?
  • Have you fathered a child that has been aborted?
  • Has pornography ever attracted you?
  • Do you have desires of having sex with a child?

I’m a defense lawyer, trained to look at an employee’s allegations with a healthy dose of skepticism. But, does anyone think, after reading Fields’ allegations, that this didn’t happen? Who could make this up? Fields alleges that he “has the form and will produce it.”

Thus, even if just part of this happened, this employer has well earned its nomination as the Worst Employer of 2019.
   
Thanks to Eric Meyer, who brought this doozy 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 Exorcising Employer

Posted on April 3, 2019June 29, 2023

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

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

MoMA PS1, a Queens, New York, art museum, has agreed to settle a pregnancy discrimination claim brought by Nikki Columbus, hired by the museum to direct its performance program.

She alleged that the museum rescinded her job offer after it learned she had recently given birth.

According to The New York Times, Columbus, five months pregnant when she applied for the job, chose not to disclose her pregnancy until after she was hired.

“I just went forward thinking that this is not their business, it’s not relevant to the job and to my abilities,” she told the Times. She added that Peter Eleey, the museum’s chief curator, told her during her interview that her predecessor had been “much less present” after she had a baby.

After being offered the job, Columbus asked Eleey for a soft transition-in period because she was recovering from just having a baby.

Eleey’s response, she alleged, “Why didn’t you tell me this two months ago?” A few days later, the museum rescinded its job offer, telling her that her conversations with Eleey “indicated that [she] would not be able to perform the job as it was structured.”

According to a museum spokesperson, “MoMA PS1 at all times has been compliant with the law and remains committed to supporting women and caregivers. We are satisfied with the agreement and are happy to put this matter behind us.”

Nevertheless, if you fire a new mom because she just had a baby, you might be the worst employer of 2019.

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

Posted on March 13, 2019June 29, 2023

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

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

I can’t do any better of job than the EEOC did in describing the parade of horribles that one supervisor wrought at Sys-Con, a Montgomery, Alabama, general contractor:

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, from December 2015 to May 2017, a supervisor at Sys-Con’s worksite at the Hyundai manufacturing plant in Montgomery, demanded sexual favors from two non-English speaking Hispanic female employees and watched pornographic videos in front of them. The EEOC further charged that the supervisor sexually assaulted one of the employees and sub­sequently taunted her, asking whether she “liked it.”

Thereafter, the EEOC said, the super­visor threatened to fire both his victims and their husbands, who were also Sys-Con employees, if they reported his harassment. When one of the employees refused his sexual advances, the supervisor terminated her.

For all of this, the EEOC settled the claims against Sys-Con for (what I consider to be) a paltry $70,000.

Folks, if you employ a supervisor who not only sexually assaults one of your employees but then taunts her about it after the fact, you might be the worst employer of 2019.

Big thanks to my friend Eric Meyer who brought today’s nominee to my attention at his Employer Handbook Blog.

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

Posted on March 7, 2019June 29, 2023

Salary Discussion Bans Are a Big Legal No-No

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

AriesAviator posted the following question in the LegalAdvice subreddit:

Boss just threatened to fire me and another co-worker because we were discussing a raise we both got- what should I do?

We both got pulled into a group chat over the app our work uses, and the first message reads as follows;

Hey I don’t want to here about your raises with the other crew members we talked about this before, other places have strict rules either termination or reversal of the raise this is not okay, Don’t turn something we tried to do nice for you too into a pain for us.

Which, uh, what the fuck?

I’m pretty fucking sure everything in there is MASSIVELY illegal.

AriesAviator wins the labor law Kewpie doll.

Policies prohibiting pay-discussions among employees, or retaliating against employees who discuss how much they make, are per se illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.

Don’t just take my word for it. Here’s what the NLRB said on this very issue in Boeing Co.:

Rules that the Board … designates as unlawful to maintain because they … prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on NLRA rights is not outweighed by justifications associated with the rule. An example … would be a rule that prohibits employees from discussing wages or benefits with one another.

So, AriesAviator, to answer your (albeit crassly asked) question, your employer’s response is 100 percent illegal, and, if you want to make a big deal out of it, jaunt over to your local NLRB office and file an unfair labor practice charge. It’s a pretty open and shut case.

Employers, if you have such policies in your handbooks, or have made such statements to your employees in the past, stop. It’s as easy of an unfair labor practice into which you can stumble.

Posted on March 5, 2019June 29, 2023

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

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

The 7th nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is an employer that (allegedly) permitted a nearly year-long campaign to malign and harass an employee living with ADHD and Tourette’s syndrome.

Melinda Crooke worked as a line worker for Herbruck Poultry Ranch, an egg farm in western Michigan. As noted above, she has ADHD, which causes her to be overtly talkative and sometimes confused, and Tourette’s syndrome, which manifests in head twitches, facial tics, uncontrolled arm movements, and occasional swearing. According to the lawsuit the EEOC filed on her behalf, all of her co-workers knew of her disabilities.

Crooke claimed that as soon as her supervisor learned of her disabilities, her harassment at the hands of said supervisor and some co-workers began. They called her “Mindy Tourette’s,” “Gabby,” “Motormouth,”and “Wandering Wanda.” They mocked her Tourette’s syndrome by biting their tongues and making exaggerated hand movements. And, after she complained to HR, the mockery only worsened. For example, her supervisor sped up the production line to make it harder for her to keep up, and followed her into the bathroom during breaks to berate her for wasting time. When she complained again to HR, she claims she was told there was nothing anyone could do.

As a result, she quit her job and went to the EEOC, which has now filed suit on her behalf. According to EEOC Trial Attorney Dale Price, “An employer cannot condone a work environment where an employee with an impairment is ridiculed because of it. It must step in to stop such behavior.”

Otherwise, you not only might get sued, but you just might end up as one of the nominees for the Worst Employer of 2019.

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

 

Posted on February 28, 2019June 29, 2023

Ensuring #MeToo Movement Advances Diversity in Leadership

Progress has been made in terms of women’s equality and protection over the past 10 years.metoo anniversary

In fact, it was recently the 10th anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009.

While there have been significant strides in reducing gender bias, harassment and sexual misconduct, clearly there is still work to be done. The #MeToo movement has been an important driver in bringing to light numerous cases of sexual abuse and misconduct.

However, it has also had the unintended consequence of causing men to refrain from interacting with women for fear of retaliation. Considering that male executives play a key role in advancing women into higher levels of leadership, this fear must be taken seriously because if unaddressed it leads to workplaces where there are fewer opportunities for women’s career advancement and informal coaching. Bloomberg recently conducted interviews with more than 30 senior executives that suggest many are startled by the #MeToo movement — some for good cause while others succumb to fear and retreat from supporting leadership diversity.

This is a huge problem for women, men, the companies they work for and society as a whole. When men shy away from mentoring women and helping them advance in their careers, it hurts everyone. Likewise, it is shameful and unacceptable when women are objectified, threatened or harmed.

In both cases no one wins. The outcome of the #MeToo movement should not be that we reverse progress on increasing diversity in leadership but that we are creating opportunities for women and men to thrive.

This shift needs to happen at the organizational level with changes implemented by leaders so that men can invest in the career advancement of women without fearing they will be classified as #MeToo participants and so that women will have confidence that they are working in a safe environment. These changes should include:

  • Providing sexual harassment and communications training for men and women. Employees and managers need to understand what is acceptable and what is not. Men and women respond to nuance differently, and everyone needs to understand what behavior crosses the line. Insight on how to be friendly, kind and foster appropriate relationships will benefit both men and women at all levels within the organization.
  • Ensuring there are confidential reporting protocols in place. All employees need to have a clear and confidential venue to report misconduct so they will not be retaliated against by their colleagues. Similarly, they need to know that because they are empowered to report any misconduct (perceived or overt), their concerns will be taken seriously and senior leadership will take appropriate and supportive action. By formalizing the process, men will feel confident that if a woman retaliates and misuses her power in a destructive way there is a recourse. Both men and women should not be driven by fear but rather they should understand that if they adhere to clearly specified boundaries and are treated unfairly, they will be supported.
  • Making evaluations less ambiguous. We know that when there is ambiguity in assessments it can lead to bias. An article in the Harvard Business Review sums it up as, “Without structure, people are more likely to rely on gender, race and other stereotypes when making decisions — instead of thoughtfully constructing assessments using agreed-upon processes and criteria that are consistently applied across all employees.” When managers use comparable data to evaluate employees and include insight from subordinates, peers and other leaders as well as self-evaluations it will help ensure that constructive criticism relayed to a subordinate is not viewed as subjective, but in fact is based on data and information gathered from multiple sources.
  • Rewarding positive behavior and swiftly addressing inappropriate or illegal actions. By recognizing men and women who serve as successful models of mentoring colleagues, leaders will gain confidence and others will better understand the best way to help both men and women advance in their careers. Likewise, punishing the bad actors will improve working conditions for everyone.

Men and women are asking some important and tough questions about the workplace. Women have earned a seat at the management table and are rightfully demanding it. The #MeToo movement has been a powerful force for change in bringing to light sexual harassment and misconduct and removing perpetrators from positions of power. It’s time to capitalize on that momentum and change our workplace policies — starting from the top down — so that we can turn the #MeToo era into a movement that is constructive, encourages human interaction and supports appropriate career advancement.

Posted on February 26, 2019June 29, 2023

Coaching Is Not Mentoring: Underrepresented Employees Need Both

In a recent meeting with a major client my consultant team and I were faced with an unusual request.

A transgender executive working for the organization had been facing a series of small but cumulatively damaging setbacks in her career after many years of success. Her slow-motion derailment was harming the performance of her team, which was tasked with a high-stakes, high-visibility project. She had transitioned (from male- to female-presenting) two years earlier and she believed the perceived lag in her performance was not about her actual results, but about her now more-visible gender identity. The organization wanted to invest in the executive’s development and needed help finding her a coach.

It turned out I was the only one in the room who had experience working with transgender clients, but before I could gather more information, one of the leaders jumped in eagerly with a suggestion: “Well, why don’t we call up the local chapter of the Human Rights Campaign and see if anyone there can coach her?” Several heads nodded.

My heart sank. These educated, well-intended professionals had just made the same error too many of our clients make — confusing coaching with mentoring.

As a professional coach and former fitness instructor, there are parallels between the two disciplines that can be helpful in making a distinction between coaching and mentoring.

Before the modern fitness movement first began in the U.S., gyms, sports and various forms of dance and exercise already existed. In the late 1970s and early ’80s, programs such as Jazzercise emerged, and Richard Simmons and Jane Fonda helped popularize a whole new form of intense, rhythmic exercise done to upbeat music.

In those early years, almost anyone who was charismatic and a good dancer could lead an “aerobics” class. However, driven by increasing popularity, the exuberance of innovation soon gave way to widely varying levels of quality among aerobics classes and instructors, some of which seriously injured participants. Over time, the industry developed standards, ethics and certification guidelines so that today, fitness instructors are mostly well trained and accountable, and class participants enjoy both safety and effective guidance in meeting their wellness goals.

Coaching is similar in that the term “coaching” existed long before the coaching field, and some aspects of what we today refer to as “coaching” have always been performed by skilled therapists, bosses, clergy, healers, elders and even close friends. However, these similarities, as well as the recent explosion of the coaching field, have contributed to both confusion about what coaching is and widely varying degrees of quality among coaches even as the field has adopted certification procedures, a code of ethics and credentialing requirements.

The Elements of Professional Coaching

“Professional coaching” is not coaching like we see happening in sports. It’s not directing. Simply put, coaching is the facilitation of self-discovery in another person. This self-discovery is achieved through powerful and provocative questions, insightful feedback on what the coach is noticing, and a clear plan for action and accountability. Effective coaches are extraordinary listeners, highly creative, extremely agile and masterful at self-management — skills developed over months of training and years of practice.

Coaching is not giving advice, telling someone what to do, or showing someone how to perform a task. These functions are more accurately described as advising, mentoring or even consulting. Mentoring is a form of advising, in which the mentor’s role is to impart what the learner doesn’t have — knowledge, wisdom, skills and connections. Coaches can be effective even with minimal experience in their client’s field or industry, because the client possesses the “self” the coach helps them unlock and act from. In mentoring, the mentor has the answers; in coaching, the client has the answers.

Effective advising, mentoring and consulting often have coaching elements to them, but they are not technically coaching. It’s also true that some coaches incorporate advising or consulting in their work — for example, debriefing the results of an assessment or 360 — but when they do, they aren’t necessarily coaching. When I incorporate advising into my coaching, I always ask permission to do so, and verbally indicate when I am stepping in and out of coaching mode.

Being clear about what coaching really is, it is not about nitpicking semantics. When advising is called coaching, or mentoring is conflated with coaching, everyone involved misses out on the unique transformative power of a professional coaching relationship. People think they have experienced coaching, when they have not.

Professional coaches are to coaching what certified fitness instructors are to the fitness world. Here are some of the requirements:

  • Many professional coaches have completed a certification program, often accredited by the International Coach Federation, which requires up to 125 hours of training taking place over several months or longer. Some certification programs also require an exam, completion of hours observed by a mentor coach, and receiving coaching from a senior level coach. Coaches who complete certification become certified professional coaches or another designation bestowed by their certification program.
  • Some coaches, certified or not, choose to complete a credential, usually with the International Coach Federation. This requires at least 100 documented hours of coaching experience, passing an exam, and in some cases (depending on the type of credential and selected path), mentor coaching and/or the submission of recorded sessions for evaluation. Credentialed coaches (ACC, PCC or MCC) must complete continuing education to maintain their credential, which must be renewed every three years.
  • In sum, all credentialed coaches are trained, many credentialed coaches are certified, but not all certified coaches are credentialed. The latter case is similar to that of a social worker that has completed their MSW degree but is not yet licensed as a counselor.

Being clear about the qualifications that professional coaches possess is not about denigrating those who aren’t certified or credentialed. Many coaches who are not certified or credentialed are very skilled. But many of them are not. Some of them are not even doing coaching, and they are neither held to a professional code of ethics nor required to meet continuing education requirements.

Our clients trying to support their struggling transgender leader had good intentions, but have a common misunderstanding of what coaching entails. Suggesting that a person from the Human Rights Campaign would be qualified to coach a transgender executive just because they’re LGBTQ is like saying a person who’s good at arithmetic is qualified to do your tax returns, or a person with nice hair is qualified to cut yours. Professional coaches have a specialized, often highly developed skill set that should not be devalued or dismissed.

Both coaching and mentoring are critical to developing employees from underrepresented and marginalized identity groups. While we do need insightful, validating facilitators of our self-discovery, we also need competent role models to show us the way.

Posted on February 25, 2019June 29, 2023

You’re Never Too Small to Have an HR Department

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Some 43 percent of American employees work for companies with 50 or fewer workers.

I raise this statistic because it is almost a guarantee that many of these small businesses operate without a dedicated HR department or HR personnel.

Earlier this month, the EEOC settled a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit it had brought against several IHOP franchises operating in New York and Nevada. The allegations were truly awful, including misbehavior such as unwanted touching of female employees’ buttocks and genitalia, graphic comments about sexual genitalia, invitations to engage in intercourse, and vulgar name calling, perpetrated by both managers and co-workers.

Part of the settlement included a cash payment of $700,000 to the alleged victims. The more interesting part of the Consent Decree requires the companies to create a human resources department (which they were lacking) staffed with professionals knowledgeable about handling and preventing discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date, for at least the duration of the Decree, Defendants shall establish and maintain a Human Resources Department with enough staffing to carry out the terms of this Decree. The Human Resources staff shall be comprised of human resources professionals with demonstrated experience in the area of employment law, properly handing complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and preventing and correcting such conduct.…

The Human Resources Department shall be easily accessible to Defendants’ employees in person, telephonically, or by email during normal business hours.

That newly created HR department is required to do all of the things you’d expect an HR department to do regarding its EEO responsibilities:

    • Establishing a record-keeping procedure that provides a centralized system of tracking discrimination, harassment and retaliation complaints.
    • Enforcing the employers’ policies, procedures, and practices to foster a workplace free of unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, including taking measures to ensure that no retaliation is taken against any employee engaging in protected activity.
    • Ensuring proper systems are in place to make certain that proper avenues exist for employees to complain about discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.
    • Receiving and promptly investigating complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from any employee.
    • Maintaining regular contact with employees who complain of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
    • Ensuring appropriate corrective and protective measures are implemented in a timely manner after conducting a thorough harassment investigation.
    • Overseeing the development and implementation of anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training and education.

Your business is never too small for an HR department, and HR should never be an afterthought. In fact, it’s one of the most important positions to fill in any business of any size.

Your people are your most important asset. No matter your product, service, or mission, without employees to make it, provide it, or carry it out, you don’t exist.

Every company needs HR to recruit and hire, to create and monitor policies, to help ensure legal compliance, to implement benefits, and to strategize. Size may vary, but without any dedicated HR professionals, you are telling your employees they don’t matter, which is never the right message to communicate.

And, further, when it leads to harassment complaints being ignored, it could land you at the receiving end of an expensive lawsuit.

Posted on February 20, 2019June 29, 2023

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

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

How many different ways can one employer discriminate? How about eight?

The EEOC recently settled a national origin and disability discrimination lawsuit against a staffing agency, brought on behalf of a group of Latino employees working at an Alabama poultry plant.

The eight different acts of discrimination alleged by the workers?

    1. They were harassed, which included ethnic slurs, threats, verbal abuse and other abusive working conditions.
    2. They were paid less than they were promised.
    3. They were placed in more hazardous conditions.
    4. They were denied bathroom and lunch breaks.
    5. They received fewer hours of work than their non-Latino co-workers.
    6. They had exorbitant relocation, housing and transportation fees deducted from their pay.
    7. They were denied medical treatment and other accommodations (such as breaks or time off from work to recuperate) after suffering repetitive motion injuries to their hands, forearms and shoulders.
    8. And, when they complained about all of the above, they were ignored.

According to Marsha L. Rucker, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District Office, “We cannot allow any employer to prey on vulnerable workers by recruiting them and then subjecting them to such gross mistreatment.” Adds Bradley Anderson, the EEOC’s Birmingham district director, “The EEOC has made combating discrimination against vulnerable workers a strategic priority so that employers cannot profit from victimizing them.”

All of the above cost this employer $475,000 to settle the EEOC’s claims.

It also earned this employer its nomination as the Worst Employer of 2019.

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 

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 … 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