equality – Page 3

April 23, 2019June 29, 2023

Does Title VII Protect Heterosexuals From Discrimination?

So meet, ROBERTa! Shopping in the women’s department for a swimsuit at the BR Target. For all of you people that say you don’t care what bathroom it’s using, you’re full of shit!! Let this try to walk in the women’s bathroom while my daughters are in there!! #hellwillfreezeoverfirst

Suppose you own a company, and one of your employees posts this rant on her personal Facebook page.

Further suppose that in addition to owning the company, you are also a lesbian and take offense to the employee’s views. If you discipline the employee for her Facebook post, and later fire the employee after she complains about the discipline, can the employee sue for retaliation under Title VII? In other words, does Title VII protect heterosexuals from discrimination in reaction to anti-LGBTQ speech?

In O’Daniel v. Industrial Service Solutions, the 5th Circuit said no.

The case put the plaintiff, unabashedly and vocally anti-LGBTQ (as expressed in the at-issue Facebook post), in the position of arguing that Title VII protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The court held that under its own precedent, O’Daniel could not move forward on her claim.

O’Daniel claims in essence that she was retaliated against because she “opposed” discrimination perpetrated against her on the basis of her heterosexual orientation.… Title VII in plain terms does not cover “sexual orientation.” … Because the law in this circuit is clear, we cannot accept O’Daniel’s … suggestions that this panel either overrule the precedents or assume arguendo that the “trend” has upended them.

Thus, because the 5th Circuit does not recognize sexual orientation as class Title VII protects, and employee’s complaints about her employer discriminating against her because she is heterosexual could not support a retaliation claim: “Title VII protects an employee only from retaliation for complaining about the types of discrimination it prohibits.”

Two points to make about this opinion.

First, if Title VII equates LGBTQ discrimination to “sex” discrimination (as I, like many other courts and the EEOC, believe it does), then logic says that it must also protect heterosexuals from discrimination at the hands of the LGBTQ community because of their sexual orientation. Any other result is logically inconsistent.

Second, this employee was not fired because she complained about discrimination. She was fired because she exhibited extremely poor judgment through her Facebook rant. As the concurring opinion succinctly and correctly states: “Simply put, Title VII does not grant employees the right to make online rants about gender identity with impunity.”

If the employee ranted against interracial marriage, and the company’s African-American owner fired her, would anyone think she has a valid claim? This case is no different. The law protects the employee from discrimination and retaliation, but it does not protect the employee’s right to express bigoted views on her personal Facebook page or otherwise.

April 2, 2019June 29, 2023

Labor Department Proposes Updates to ‘Regular Rate’ and ‘Joint Employer’

Over the past week, the Department of Labor’s announced proposals for significant (and much needed) regulatory updates to the definitions of “regular rate” and “joint employer.”

The DOL proposed an update to the definition of “regular rate” under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The proposal would permit employers to exclude the following from an employee’s regular rate of pay:

The cost of providing wellness programs, onsite specialist treatment, gym access and fitness classes, and employee discounts on retail goods and services.
Payments for unused paid leave, including paid sick leave.
Reimbursed expenses, even if not incurred “solely” for the employer’s benefit.
Reimbursed travel expenses that do not exceed the maximum travel reimbursement permitted under the Federal Travel Regulation System regulations and that satisfy other regulatory requirements.
Discretionary bonuses.
Benefit plans, including accident, unemployment, and legal services.
Tuition programs, such as reimbursement programs or repayment of educational debt.

This change, if finalized, would be significant, as it would exclude these items of compensations from non-exempt employees’ overtime pay. According to the DOL, this change is needed to encourage employers to offer more financial perks to their employees, as, under the current rules, employers don’t offer these perks out of a fear that it will lead to increased overtime pay. You can read the full proposed rule change here.

Second, the DOL proposed a new four-factor test to determine whether two entities are joint employers over the same employees. Under this proposed new test, to qualify as a joint employer, the entity would have to “actually exercise the power” to:

Hire or fire employees.
Supervise and control employees’ work schedules or conditions of employment.
Determine employees’ rate and method of payment.
Maintain employees’ employment records.

This change, if finalized, would also be significant, as it would limit a potential joint employer’s exposure for wage and hour liabilities of the primary employer. You can read the full proposed rule here.

Both of these rules are open for public comment for 60 days. Stay tuned, as if these become final, they represent key changes to employers’ wage and hour responsibilities.

March 5, 2019June 29, 2023

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

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

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.

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.

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.

January 29, 2019January 29, 2019

Public Sector Employers and Age Discrimination

When Mount Lemmon (Arizona) Fire District faced a budget crisis, it laid off its two oldest (and highest paid) full-time firefighters.

They sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The district argued that it did not violate any laws because it is too small to be considered an “employer” under the ADEA. Section 630(b) of the ADEA defines the term “employer” to mean any individual or company who has 20 or more employees. It states the term employer “also means a State or political subdivision of a State.”

The district argued that the two sentences should be read together to excuse any state or local government employer with fewer than 20 employees from complying with the ADEA. The district urged the court to adopt this interpretation because it is consistent with court decisions applying the minimum employee requirement to public employers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court disagreed with each of the district’s arguments. It held that by using the terms “also means,” Congress intended to add a second definition of the term “employer,” not clarify the prior definition. The court also noted that the ADEA is sometimes broader than Title VII due to the different language used in each statute. Mount Lemmon Fire Dist. v. John Guido, No. 17-587 (Nov. 6, 2018).

IMPACT: Public sector employers are subject to the ADEA and prohibited from discriminating against employees over age 40 based on age.

January 16, 2019June 29, 2023

Gillette’s Toxic Masculinity Ad Isn’t the Problem; Toxic Masculinity Is the Problem

Gillette is facing a lot of praise, and a lot of backlash, over its recent ad slamming toxic masculinity culture.

The ad offers two views of men.

The first — a boy bullied and called a “sissy,” a man grabs at a woman’s behind, a businessman condescending to a female employee. During, a voice over notes that men make “the same old excuses”: Boys will be boys.

Then, vignettes of men doing better — intervening against sexual harassment, being attentive fathers to their daughters, promoting peace over violence.

The tagline: “Bullying. Harassment. Is this the best a man can get? It’s only by challenging ourselves to do more, that we can get closer to our best. To say the right thing, to act the right way.”

This message should not be controversial. But it has been. Very.

Fox News pundit Greg Gutfeld: “It’s almost as if the people who make products for men, hate men!”

Piers Morgan: “The subliminal message is clear: men, ALL men are bad, shameful people who need to be directed in how to be better people.”

A slew of folks on Twitter who are calling for people to #BoycottGillette.

Here’s the thing. Gillette’s add calling for an end to toxic masculinity isn’t the problem. Toxic masculinity is the problem.

We men can, should, and must do better. #MeToo isn’t a catchphrase, it’s a philosophy. Equality should not be controversial.

And yet, it is. Until we men do better — until we stop bullying those we see as weak or un-masculine, until we stop grabbing and groping, until we stop condescending to those who we view as different or weaker, and start treating women as equals, intervening to stop harassment, and being better role models — harassment and discrimination will continue to plague our society and our workplaces.

I fully recognize that a sizable portion of my readers will take issue with my stance on this commercial and this issue. And that’s OK.

The ad is designed to spark debate. So let’s have a debate. Defend your position that the ad insults men. Without debate nothing will change.

And on issues of gender equality and sexual harassment, change is long overdue.

January 8, 2019June 29, 2023

Beware Pre-Shift and Post-Shift Workplace Activities

In Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, the Supreme Court held that the FLSA only requires employers to compensate employees for time spent performing pre-shift (preliminary) and post-shift (postliminary) activities that are “integral and indispensable” to an employee’s principal activities.

What are “integral and indispensable?” Those activities that are (1) “necessary to the principal work performed” and (2) “done for the benefit of the employer.”

In Busk, for example, the court held that post-shift security screenings were not “integral and indispensable” for an Amazon warehouse employee, because such screenings are not “an intrinsic element of retrieving products from warehouse shelves or packaging them for shipment,” and the employer “could have eliminated the screenings altogether without impairing the employees’ ability to complete their work.”

In light of these standards, consider Mireles v. Hooters of Am., LLC, filed late last year in a Houston federal court. A Hooters waitress claims that her employer unlawfully withholds pay for “postliminary” activities.

According to the lawsuit, Hooters requires its “Girls” to be “approachable, upbeat, and attentive to the needs of the guests as she socially engages with and entertains each individual guest at the front door and on the floor.” Accordingly, it requires that they spend substantial post-shift time “conversing with customers about topics unrelated to Defendants’ food and beverage offerings or local attractions, and spending substantial time waiting for managers to reconcile their sales receipts and tips towards the end of each shift.”

Are these waitresses entitled to be paid? Who knows. The point to be made runs much deeper.

There is a fine line between what is “integral and indispensable.” If the waitresses are required to be “attentive to the needs of the guests” and “socially engaging,” then I can craft an argument that time spent schmoozing post-shift should be compensated, just as I can make the point that such activities have nothing to do with the principal work of serving wings and beer. These off-the-clock cases are difficult, expensive and risky. If you lose, you’re not just paying your lawyer, but also the plaintiffs’ lawyer.

In other words, before you decide that your employees’ pre-shift and post-shift time is non-compensible, stop, take a deep breath, and call your employment lawyer.

December 6, 2018June 29, 2023

Does Title VII Protect an Employee’s Self-help Discovery?

Suppose one of your employees believes that she was discriminated against because of her protected class.

She files a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, and in support of the charge, provides the agency information from your confidential personnel files that she had copied. In response, you fire the employee for violating your confidentiality policy? She then files a new charge, alleging that her termination was in retaliation for her protected activity of gathering evidence in support of her discrimination claim.

Does her retaliation claim succeed?

Lawyer answer: it depends.

Most recent answer: The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Netter v. Barnes.

Under the opposition clause, unauthorized disclosures of confidential information to third parties are generally unreasonable.…

However, the participation clause offers more capacious protection for conduct in connection with Title VII proceedings. Application of the participation clause must account for the evidentiary difficulties many plaintiffs face when pressing claims of workplace discrimination.…

That said, we cannot conclude that Netter’s unauthorized inspection and copying of the personnel files constituted protected participation activity for a straightforward reason. She violated a valid, generally-applicable state law [against the] “knowingly and willfully examin[ing]…, remov[ing,] or copy[ing] any portion of a confidential personnel file” without authorized access. “[I]llegal actions” do not constitute “protected activity under Title VII.”

We are loath “to provide employees an incentive to rifle through confidential files looking for evidence.”

In other words, because Title VII’s anti-retaliation provisions do not permit an employee to engage in illegal activities, and because this employee’s state law prohibits the copying of confidential personnel files, Title VII does not protect her copying in this case.

That said, your mileage on this issue will vary based on your jurisdiction and the nature of the how the employee gained the information.

Courts generally balance the following factors to determine whether the employee’s gathering of the documents was reasonable, and therefore protected:

How the documents were obtained
To whom the documents were produced
The content of the documents, both in terms of the need to keep the information confidential and its relevance to the employee’s claim of unlawful conduct
Why the documents were produced, including whether the production was in direct response to a discovery request
The scope of the employer’s privacy policy
The ability of the employee to preserve the evidence in a manner that does not violate the employer’s privacy policy.

For example, in Niswander v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., the 6th Circuit held that an employee who purposely rifles through confidential personnel records to locate evidence to support a discrimination claim cannot support a retaliation claim.

Yet, in Kempcke v. Monsanto Co., the 8th Circuit permitted the retaliation claim based on the fact that the employee had innocently stumbled across the evidence of potential discrimination in a computer that his employer had issued to him.

What does all of this mean for you?

First, review your company privacy policy to ensure that it sufficiently covers employee personnel files so that you can rely upon it if you have to terminate an employee for engaging in some self-help to support a discrimination claim.

Second, before you take any action, check in with your employment counsel to discuss the circumstances and the potential risks of stepping into a retaliation claim.

November 28, 2018June 29, 2023

The 4 Keys to Being a Best-in-Class D&I Professional

“How can I do what you do?” asked a bright young woman on the phone one spring morning. She enthusiastically described how she’d studied and experienced various cultures and was inspired to do work that makes a difference.

She’d read some of my articles, saw me speak and felt a spark of connection. She wanted to turn her passion and values into a career, like I had. And because she was resourceful, she reached out for advice.

One of the joys of being a mid-career D&I professional is that I often get inquiries like this. One of the burdens, however, is providing a helpful response to new professionals facing a world that’s quite different from the early ’90s landscape I navigated, yet troublingly similar.

What’s different is our technology, our demographics, our polarized politics and a resurgence of overt white supremacy and bigoted violence. What’s the same is the lack of credibility many D&I professionals command relative to other professionals and organizational functions. I believe one of the reasons is insufficient rigor in developing the necessary skillset to garner results that matter and exude excellence.

Here are four keys that will equip D&I professionals at any career level to embody excellence and establish themselves as best-in-class D&I professionals, indispensable to those we serve.

Identify and live from your personal “business case.” I’m struck by D&I practitioners who have no substantive answer to the question: “Why do you do this work? (How do you benefit?)” “New school” D&I isn’t just about helping others. It’s about creating a world that works better for more of us and attaining meaningful results that matter. Best-in-class professionals work from their heart, mind and soul, and have personal skin in the game. Being grounded in the heart balances intellectual rigor, and adds depth, integrity and authenticity to our work. A personal business case provides motivation and inspiration when we’re weary. My personal business case is that from a very young age I experienced and witnessed firsthand how traits over which people have no control (sex, race, nationality and social class) can cause other people to treat them as less than they are, thwarting their happiness and ability to contribute.

A personal business case requires not just knowledge of self, but clarity of values and vision. I deeply value integrity, authenticity, excellence, connection and expression. My vision is a world where everyone has access to all the knowledge and resources necessary to live their happiest, healthiest life, contributing their brilliance for personal fulfillment and collective benefit. I stand for a world where we get out of each other’s way — and our own way.

Do your personal work. Having personal skin in the D&I game and caring about people means that the work can be emotionally triggering and exhausting. Those of us who are especially sensitive and empathic can experience second-hand trauma or be re-traumatized by interpersonal dynamics in a workshop or workplace. I’ve witnessed how a facilitator can injure workshop participants through ineffective behaviors driven by their unresolved anger or guilt. I’ve seen how leaders driving organizational D&I initiatives can subvert their own efforts through counterproductive behaviors stemming from exhaustion, mistrust or shame. Many of us who do D&I work do it because we (or a loved one) have been wounded in some way. Do not allow the impact of this important work to be diluted or tainted by you trying to resolve your personal pain through the work alone.

There’s a saying: “If you don’t heal what hurt you, you bleed on those who didn’t cut you.” While it’s true that if we all waited to tackle D&I work until we were fully healed that the work would never happen, it’s critical to be on a path of personal growth. Become intimately acquainted with (and honest about) your motivations, triggers, weaknesses and sore spots. Build keen self-awareness and be in ongoing curious dialogue with yourself about what’s going on with you and how you can develop. Build your emotional intelligence and resilience. If you’re a facilitator, hone your ability to self-manage, and develop a superpower around being present, relaxed and extremely attentive to the subtleties of human communication. Engage difficult questions — in the classroom and the field — with curiosity and courage. Establish healthy boundaries in all areas of life, practice radical self-care, and invest in your physical, mental, emotional and spiritual wellness. And forgive yourself for your shortcomings and bad days!

Be highly competent in multiple areas of D&I. D&I professionals who seek to be expert trusted advisers should be able to effectively answer a broad array of “diversity” questions. At the very least, you should have sophisticated knowledge about the history, terminology and practical applications of: (1) race/ethnicity (including racism), (2) sex and gender (including sexism), (3) LGBTQQIA+, (4) disability, and (5) major local racial/ethnic/cultural groups (in the U.S.: African Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans). You must also be well-informed about the growing body of research establishing the organizational business case for diversity and the myriad tangible benefits of inclusion. You should know the basics of the latest brain science that impacts our current understanding of bias and interpersonal communication. You should read widely, listen to podcasts, attend conferences and lectures and stay informed about local and global current events. As a bonus, become familiar with the decades of theory and knowledge amassed in intercultural communication, a field similar to D&I.

Be highly competent in an area outside of D&I. Best-in-class D&I professionals are well-versed in at least one additional area outside D&I, such as organization development, leadership development, human resources, professional coaching, training facilitation/design, adult learning, assessment, business administration or international management. Many have first-hand leadership experience, have worked abroad, and/or speak more than one language. These skills equip the D&I consultant to accurately assess a client’s current state, identify strategic opportunities, and make impactful recommendations (read this article for more guidelines for consultants). They also equip the D&I facilitator to establish credibility, better understand their workshop participants and serve them where they are.

“Some think my standards are too high,” I told my caller that morning. “It’s true these are high expectations,” I added, “but they’re not unreasonable.” No one says the professional standards set for attorneys or accountants are too high, and we’re just as necessary. Expecting anything less than these four keys from D&I professionals is to diminish the quality of our expertise and its crucial importance to the success of organizations and the societies they shape and inhabit.