There are some employment policies that you can get away with not having. An anti-discrimination policy is not one of them.
In Hubbell v. FedEx SmartPost (decided Aug. 5 by the 6th Circuit), FedEx learned this lesson the hard way.
Sheryl Hubbell worked for Defendant FedEx SmartPost as a parcel sorter. A jury concluded that it retaliated against her after she filed an EEOC charge alleging that her manager demoted her and ultimately fired her after telling her that âfemales are better suited to administrative roles and males are better suited to leadership roles.â A jury awarded her $519,550, reduced by the trial court to $415,60 (plus an additional $157,733.75 in attorneysâ fees).
This employer made a lot of mistakes that caused this large judgment, but one of the biggest was that it did not have an anti-discrimination policy until 2013, one year after Hubbell claims she started suffering retaliation.
Several of Hubbellâs managers testified that FedEx had an anti-discrimination policy and that they had been trained on this policy. Jessica Benjamins, FedExâs corporate Human Resources manager, also testified as to FedExâs anti-discrimination policy. She testified that FedEx conducts annual online âdiversity inclusion trainingâ for managers. And she testified that it has long been FedExâs policy not to discriminate. But FedEx only promulgated a specific policy on non-discriminatory hiring and promotion on November 26, 2013âafter Hubbell was demoted and filed her first EEOC complaint.
So hereâs your homework assignment. Open your employee handbook. Turn to the table of contents. Look for the policy that says, âDiscrimination.â If you canât find it, call me.
A Muslim woman is suing the hospital at which she works as medical assistant, claiming she was told she needed a ânote from the Quranâ when she asked for an exception to the hospitalâs dress code to wear a face covering during Ramadan.
The case, Boyd v. Cooper University Hospital, is pending in federal court in New Jersey. While itâs just filed and years from resolution, we can use it to learn how an employer should react when a employee dons religious garb in the workplace.
Title VII requires that an employer reasonably accommodate an employeeâs sincerely held religious belief. This accommodation includes exceptions to an employerâs dress code or grooming policy.
According to the EEOC, an employer may not âautomatically refuse to accommodate an applicantâs or employeeâs religious garb or grooming practice if it would violate the employerâs policy.â
Title VII requires an employer, once it is aware that a religious accommodation is needed, to accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. Therefore, when an employerâs dress and grooming policy or preference conflicts with an employeeâs known religious beliefs or practices, the employer must make an exception to allow the religious practice unless that would be an undue hardship on the operation of the employerâs business. ⌠For purposes of religious accommodation, undue hardship is defined by courts as a âmore than de minimisâ cost or burden on the operation of the employerâs business.
There are limits, however, and an employer may âbar an employeeâs religious dress or grooming practice based on workplace safety, security, or health concerns ⌠but only if the practice actually poses an undue hardship on the operation of the business.â
The employer should not assume that the accommodation would pose an undue hardship. While safety, security, or health may justify denying accommodation in a given situation, the employer may do so only if the accommodation would actually pose an undue hardship. In many instances, there may be an available accommodation that will permit the employee to adhere to religious practices and will permit the employer to avoid undue hardship.
While we have no idea how the Boyd case will play out, it nevertheless serves as a great illustration of the need for employers to consider exceptions to dress codes as reasonable accommodations for employeesâ sincerely held religious beliefs, and the risks that occur when employers skirt this obligation.
Yeah, Iâm talking to you, Pritika Padhi (Game Changers Class of 2019), and you, Jason Hite (Class of â16) and you too, Monica Sauls (Class of â13) and Tiffani Murray, who was among the 11 recipients in our inaugural class of Game Changers in 2011.
We are launching a blog specifically dedicated to you, for you and by you! It will be a community blog that all Game Changers can post to. And it can be on any topic under the people management umbrella.
We now head into a decade of Game Changers, our awards program recognizing workforce management professionals under 40 who are pushing the field forward with innovative people-management practices.
For the first time in the programâs history, our judges selected 40Â Game Changers in 2019. While the majority works in the United States, numerous winners also span the globe, from Nigeria to Norway to Bahrain, as well as several winners from across India.
The thread that ties this yearâs winners with all past recipients is that their efforts engage employees and help their respective companies succeed.
And while Game Changers is a 40-under-40 program, our first couple of classes are pushing 50 years old now. Crazy to think how time flies.
Jason Hite, a 2016 Workforce Game Changer.
No matter what year you were named, consider your area of game-changing expertise as a starting point. Think broadly about how HR affects the workplace, and how the workplace affects HR. What is unique to HR practices in your geographical area? Are there news issues affecting HR? Are there big-picture workplace issues youâd like to address? These are all topics to blog about.
Now, we have lost touch with a number of our past winners. Job changes, shifting from one content management system to another, lost Excel docs(who uses Excel anymore right? All about Google docs in 2019!). Whatever the reason we want to reconnect and maintain you as a Workforce thought leader.
We want to ask you, our vast audience, to help. If you have a colleague who was recognized as a Game Changer please let them and us know! Our contact information is below.
You Game Changers can blog up to once a week if youâd like, or as often as time allows, or even never. Itâs just that as young, up and coming thought leaders in your field, this is an opportunity to engage and enlighten our readership (and do a bit of personal brand-building, as well!). As of right now weâre planning to title the blog simply âThe Game Changers.â
Pritika Padhi, left, and Dharshana Ramachandran, 2019 Workforce Game Changers.
The parameters are simple. Word count is between 450 and 850 words (if you have an amazing idea worth more words, just ask; weâre pretty lenient); no outright promotion of a company or product; write in a persuasive, op-ed style (first person is fine if youâd like); and have fun with it! Blogs are supposed to be engaging and spur discussion, so engage and spur some discussion!
When you file your blog, please send it to me, Rick Bell (rbell@humancapitalmedia.com), and my Workforce colleague Andie Burjek (aburjek@humancapitalmedia.com). In the email subject line please use: Game Changer blog post: (your name) and a 4-6 word descriptor of the content (i.e., mentoring can be beneficial to recruiting). Andie or I will edit and post as quickly as we can.
Oh, and please include tagline similar to this: Jennifer Benz leads Segal Benz, a national leader in HR and employee benefits communications. She was honored as one of Workforceâs Game Changers in 2013. Contact her at jbenz@segalbenz.com or follow her on Twitter at @jenbenz. Yes indeed, our esteemed âBenefits Beatâ columnist is a member of the Class of 2013.
And by all means, we ask that you please share it on all of your social media channels once it posts.
We are planning to launch the blog the week of Aug. 10. Feel free to contribute in the next couple of weeks so we have a well of content going into the launch.
Any questions, comments or thoughts just drop a note to Andie and me.
Poor treatment from a boss can make employees feel that theyâre not valued by a group. As a result, they can become more self-centered, leading them to occasionally forget to comply with safety rules or overlook opportunities to promote a safer work environment.
The headline made me think that if bullying contributes to an unsafe workplace, can it also violate OSHA? The answer is quite possibly yes.
While OSHA does not have a specific standard on workplace bullying, it does have a General Duty Clause. It requires that employers provide a workplace free from conditions that cause, or are likely to cause, death or serious physical harm to employees. Itâs not a stretch to imagine bullying, or permitting the continued employment of a bully, to violate this duty.
Moreover, if bullying violates OSHA, then failing to have a policy against it, and properly training employees on that policy, also violates OSHA. It’s a potential triple whammy.
Arguing that OSHA covers bullying is not novel. At last yearâs American Bar Associationâs Labor and Employment Law Section annual conference, for example, one panel argued for OSHA coverage for sexual harassment. OSHA already covers workplace violence and the hazards that cause it, potentially including intimidation and verbal abuse. And, in 2011 OSHA adopted an anti-bullying policy for its own employees.
Iâm not saying this is a clear-cut issue. In fact, I think itâs more likely than not that OSHA does not cover workplace bullying. But the fact that weâre having this conversation shows that this is an ongoing problem that employers need to address.
What can employers do? The Journal of Applied Psychology study offers three suggestions.
Implement training programs that can improve leadersâ skills in interacting with their employees, so as to provide feedback and discipline in ways that are neither offensive nor threatening.
Promote a more civil and engaged work environment that strengthens social bonds between employees and creates a buffer against the negative consequences of their bossâ bad behaviors
Implement transparent performance evaluation processes so employees have less uncertainty about their social status in the workplace.
Or, you can just adopt my four-word workplace civility policy. Either way, tolerating and condoning abuse in the workplace, or worse yet, perpetrating it, cannot and should not continue, OSHA violation or no OSHA violation.
Imagine itâs a typical, hurried, tired Monday morning.
You rush out the door, coffee in hand, and by the grace of green traffic lights, make it to the office just in time. The ride up the elevator is a familiar feeling â to-do lists and meeting agendas already running through your mind.
Upon opening the office doors, youâre greeted by your coworkers and their smiling, tail-wagging dogs.
This is a reality in a steadily increasing amount of workplaces across the country. According to a 2019 benefits survey by Society for Human Resource Management, 11 percent of workplaces allow dogs, a 3 percent increase from 2015.
In June, Rover, an in-home dog-walking and pet care company, released a list of the 100 Best Dog-Friendly Offices in the United States, which was topped by the likes of widely known organizations such as Amazon, Airbnb and Uber. In forming the list, Rover considered dog-related benefits such as dogs being allowed in the office, pet stipends, paid time-off for pet bereavement and other pet-related amenities, such as green spaces to walk your dog and treats.
For many, the idea of having a furry friend tag along from nine to five is ideal. However, creating a space that is both dog-friendly and people-friendly takes time and thoughtful planning, said Jovana Teodorovic, head of people and culture at Rover, where people can bring their dogs to work every day.
Jovana Teodorovic, head of people and culture at Rover, and Riley.
âThat doesnât work in every environment. It depends on what building youâre in, how dog-friendly they are and how much space you have,â she said. âWe have been very proactive in how we design our spaces, and that allows a large number of dogs in the office every day.â
Teodorovic said that allowing dogs in the office has positively impacted company culture at Rover as well as the productivity and happiness of individual employees. Dogs often serve as a point of conversation and connection between employees.
âTaking a break during the day to play with your dog is a great way to feel better throughout the day and to feel more engaged with the work youâre doing,â she said.
However, introducing dogs into the office requires proactive planning and open communication between all levels of an organizationâs structure.
âThe first thing is to have employee buy-in regarding these policies,â Teodorovic said. â[Make] sure that the majority is comfortable with being pet-friendly and then having mechanisms in place around the folks who have allergies or have a fear of dogs.â
Rover also has thought out policies regarding all the âwhat ifsâ that come with being a pet-friendly office, from potential altercations between dogs to the inevitable need for âdoggy bags.â
âWe offer free dog-walking for our employees so that the dogs are walked and quiet and satisfied,â Teodorovic said. âThe dogs are in a safe space every day and we have dog gates as well.â
Creating a safe, regulated and familiar environment for dogs also helps reduce any incidents.
âOf course our employees being very dog-oriented and great dog owners and training their dogs from the beginning creates a really great workplace,â Teodorovic said. âBut itâs different for any company and it really should be an evolving process.â
Ultimately, Teodorovic said, an organization may determine that dogs-in-the-office policies simply arenât for them, whether thatâs due to allergies, building policies or the wants of employees.
There are other ways for employers to be dog-friendly without actually having dogs in the office. Many of the companies on Roverâs list as well as Rover have benefits that support pet-owners. These benefits range from âpawternityâ leave (an extra week of paid time off after getting a new dog), providing $500-$1,000 toward adoption fees, and free dog-sitting services.
Teodorovic said that dog-friendly policies and benefits can not only be a tool in increasing retention and recruiting, but improving employeeâs everyday experience at work.
âIf a company is struggling to create their culture or having a positive culture, itâs a really great way â without having a ton of policies and meetings and work â to accelerate the quality of their interactions and the quality of their company culture,â she said.
It must be a brave soul who dares to strike up a flirtatious conversation at the workplace microwave these days. Only ten percent of Americans report having met their mate at the office, a level that is half what it was in the 1990s.
But in the post-#MeToo office, unless you send a memo to the guy you fancy, signed with your consent at the bottom, it is understandable that he wouldnât want to make the first move for fear of being hauled before human resources. While most normal guys are able to tell whether a woman likes them or not, the erasure of any âgrey areaâ in workplace interactions means more and more people are feeling nervous about taking the first step.
At Spiked, Ella adds
Companies are responding to the sexual-harassment panic by banning alcohol from office parties and instituting policies on how long and how close personal interactions should be. Bosses who hug their employees are even making headline news. âŚ
Itâs time to rebel against these attacks on workplace romance. So wear your lowest top to your next board meeting and linger too long by your colleagueâs desk. We need to make the workplace a humane environment where sparks can once again fly.
Clickbait headlines aside, #MeToo hasnât killed the office romance; itâs just killed the inappropriate office romance. The boss dating his (or her) subordinate. The co-worker that wonât take ânoâ for an answer. The improper or otherwise improper texter or emailer.
Thereâs nothing inherently illegal about co-workers dating each other. In fact, according to a recent survey, 31 percent of people who met and started dating while working together ended up getting married (to each other).
Still, thereâs a lot that can (and sometimes does) go wrong when employees get romantically involved.
Conflicts of interest.
Extortion and blackmail attempts.
Uncomfortable conversations with HR and company attorneys explaining your love life.
Have to describing your employeeâs private affairs in a deposition or, worse, to a jury.
Office gossip.
Love contracts.
The loss of respect from co-workers and management.
Facing termination for not disclosing a romance.
Harassment and retaliation lawsuits when someone other than an employeeâs paramour gets passed over for a promotion, fired, or otherwise thinks you are playing favorites.
Harassment or retaliation lawsuits by a jilted partner when the relationship goes south.
Which doesnât mean that employees shouldnât date; it just means that employers need to understand that permitting office romances amplifies the risk of claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, especially when the parties involved are a manager or supervisor and his or her subordinate.
The question, then, isnât whether these relationship are illegal (theyâre not), but how much risk you, as an employer, want to assume in the event a relationships sours, or other employees feels shunned or mistreated as a result.
Ban them outright?
Ban them only between a manager/supervisor and his/her subordinate?
Permit them with a signed agreement (the âlove contractâ)?
Do nothing and permit them across-the-board?
I recommend avoiding the first option and not banning them outright because of a knee-jerk reaction to #MeToo. Thatâs just lazy employee management. Not all workplace relationships are toxic or unlawful, and if youâre diligent in your anti-harassment training and other efforts, youâll be able to spot, catch, and handle the ones that are.
Then, I came across this post on LinkedIn, discussing a massive barrier that the FMLA institutionally imposes.
An individual suffering with a mental health issue has various treatment and therapy options available to them. For medication, one can see a psychiatrist, a primary care physician or a nurse practitioner. For assessment and therapy, one can see a psychologist, a clinical social worker or a licensed professional counselor.
Amazingly, however, the FMLA does not recognize one of these licensed mental health professionals as a âhealth care provider.â
I wonât leave you in suspense. The answer is licensed professional counselors (unless an employerâs group health plan covers licensed professional counselors). The FMLAâs regulations specifically itemize all of the other categories of mental health professionals as âhealth care providers,â and specifically omits licensed professional counselors from its list. This omission is important, because an employeeâs mental condition cannot qualify for FMLA leave as a âserious health conditionâ if, for outpatient treatment, the employee is not under âcontinuing treatment by a health care provider.â
As a matter of policy, however, the FMLA absolutely should cover licensed professional counselors as health care providers. According to a recent study by the National Council for Behavioral Health, the leading cause of our countryâs mental health crisis is a lack of access to mental health services. We should not be erecting any barriers to mental health services, let alone one ingrained in the federal law that protects employeesâ jobs when they take time off for health reasons, including their mental health. By refusing to recognize licensed professional counselors as FMLA-covered health care providers, the FMLA is deterring employees from seeking critical mental health treatment, or at least forcing them to choose between treatment and their jobs if a licensed professional counselor is the only available help. Many who canât afford to live without their jobs will choose their paycheck over their health, exacerbating their mental health issues.
Gene Scalia has been nominated to replace Alex Acosta as Secretary of Labor. I implore him to close this dangerous loophole by amending the FMLAâs regulations to make it clear and explicit that licensed professional counselors qualify as health care providers in all cases, and not just those in which an employer has made the choice that its group health plan covers their services.
The relationship between a CEO and chief human resources officer is arguably the most unique in the corporate world.
When fostered strategically, the dynamic between the person at the helm of the company and the head of human resources can drive a business to greater heights. However, when that dynamic is one of misalignment or blurred responsibilities, it can singlehandedly take an organization down unproductive paths.
Many key executives report directly to the CEO â for example, the chief financial officer. This is typically someone with a highly specialized background in finance who has grown through the management ranks into the executive level.
When CEOs and CFOs interact, the dynamic is one where the CEO relies heavily on a CFOâs extensive knowledge of financial best practices. The CEO sees a clear line between responsibilities for their role and the CFOâs role, and understands they must rely on the CFO to ensure financial processes and decisions support the overall strategy.
Oftentimes a CEOâs leadership team is viewed as a three-legged stool between the CEO, CFO and CHRO. Unfortunately, the relationship between the CEO and CHRO is not as clear-cut, causing confusion and frustration.
One study found that only 11 percent of CEOs view their HR chiefs as anticipators, able to forecast talent needs and provide the insights that support business planning. When HR is viewed as reactive and not strategic, CHROs are not given opportunity to demonstrate how their expertise can add value. Too often, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy relegating HR to an administrative, rather than strategic, function.
Trusted Adviser
Why are CEO-CFO relationships generally more productive than CEO-CHRO relationships? Many CEOs have spent meaningful time in P&L roles where theyâve gained a strong foundation in sales, marketing, finance and operations. Some have even held significant staff roles in those functions.
Very few have ever rotated through HR. Ironically, many CEOs fancy themselves as HR experts with an innate ability to identify, select and develop talent. Some do excel at this, but many do not. Itâs a delicate situation for CHROs to address. It takes courage, finesse and credibility to become a trusted adviser.
Mary Barra, chairman and CEO of General Motors, is a rare example of a CEO who spent meaningful time in HR. From 2009 through 2011, Barra served as vice president, global human resources. Her earlier experience included stints in engineering, manufacturing and product development. Shortly after becoming CEO, Barra took a page out of her HR playbook when she decided to change GMâs archaic 10-page dress code policy to two words: âDress Appropriately.â
On the surface, this might appear to be a mundane issue for a CEO to focus on. In reality, it was a brilliant move to send a clear message on empowering people to lead. Ironically, the HR department posed the biggest hurdle.
In a recent article in Entrepreneur, CEOs are said to want four things out of HR: match talent resources with company strategy; help attract the best and brightest; deliver excellence in the onboarding process; and foster employee engagement.
Itâs interesting to note that, in Entrepreneurâs above four points, there is no mention of compliance, policies, cost-per-hire or other baseline tactical issues. Over the years, CFOs have earned a âseat at the tableâ by focusing on the more strategic issues while delegating day-to-day tasks such as accounting, controls and financial reporting. The truly exceptional CHROs have been able to do the same, however, their numbers are few. Many CHROs are still considered by the CEO to be administratively minded, and thatâs why they are unable to attain or keep their seat at the table.
Moving Forward Collaboratively
There is another interesting phenomenon in the CEO-CHRO relationship. While most CEOs express a desire to have a strategic CHRO on his or her team, few really understand what that truly means. In some cases, they have had limited interaction with a strategic HR leader and canât comprehend how that function will impact business. These CEOs often have a difficult time assessing CHRO abilities and actual performance. In other cases, the CEO understands the value of a strategic HR partner, but the organization is not ready for that type of transformational leader.
Naturally, every company has its own unique dynamics that shape the relationships within it, especially between the CEO and the CHRO. Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, is often credited with embracing the value of HR and changing the way the function is viewed. During his tenure as CEO, GEâs CHRO was Bill Conaty who had a great deal of business and financial acumen. As a result, Welch involved Conaty in most major business decisions.
Not every CEO will utilize the HR function to its fullest potential. For those who do, however, the results will be significant assuming the CHRO is up to the task.
Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S.
Between the ages of 10 and 34, however, suicide is the second leading cause of death, and the fourth leading cause of death between the ages of 35 and 54.
In 2017, 47,173 Americans died from suicide (more than double the number of homicide victims), and another 1.4 million attempted suicide.
Between 2000 and 2016, the U.S. suicide rate among adults ages 16 to 64 rose 34 percent, from 12.9 deaths for every 100,000 people to 17.3 per 100,000.
In 2016, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics hit a record in its 25-year tally of workplace suicides at 291, with the number gradually climbing over the prior decade.
The highest suicide rate among men was for workers in construction and mining jobs, with 53.2 deaths per 100,000 in 2015, up from 43.6 in 2012.
The highest suicide rate among women was for workers in arts, design, entertainment, sports and media, with 15.6 deaths per 100,000 in 2015, up from 11.7 in 2012.
The numbers are stark and scary and show a nation in the midst of a mental health crisis. What can employers do to recognize and mitigate this risk, and provide a safe workplace for employees in crisis?
For starters, educate yourself. There are a lot of free resources available online.
OSHAÂ (focused on the construction industry, but still of general use for all employers)
Next, employers need to increase awareness and reduce the stigma that surround mental health issues. Stigma and silence are the two biggest reasons why those that need help donât receive it. What can employers do to recognize and help an at-risk employee?
1. Be aware of individual risk factors for suicide. You cannot always prevent suicide, but you can understand some of the risk factors so that can recognize when an employee might be in crisis and in need of help.
Mental disorders, particularly mood disorders, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, and certain personality disorders.
Alcohol and other substance use disorders.
Hopelessness.
Impulsive and/or aggressive tendencies.
History of trauma or abuse.
Major physical illnesses.
Previous suicide attempt(s).
Family history of suicide.
Job or financial loss.
Loss of relationship(s).
Easy access to lethal means.
Local clusters of suicide.
Lack of social support and sense of isolation.
Being victimized by discrimination, harassment, or bullying.
Stigma associated with asking for help.
Lack of healthcare, especially mental health and substance abuse treatment.
Cultural and religious beliefs, such as the belief that suicide is a noble resolution of a personal dilemma.
Exposure to others who have died by suicide (in real life or via the media and Internet).
2. Provide mental-health awareness training to managers and supervisors. They spend the most time observing their employees, and are often in the best position to observe behavioral changes and risk factors, and hear from co-workers that someone might be in danger. Some of the warning signs for everyone to look for include:
Talking about wanting to die or to kill themselves.
Looking for a way to kill themselves, like searching online or buying a gun.
Talking about feeling hopeless or having no reason to live.
Talking about feeling trapped or in unbearable pain.
Talking about being a burden to others.
Increasing the use of alcohol or drugs.
Acting anxious or agitated; behaving recklessly.
Sleeping too little or too much.
Withdrawing or isolating themselves.
Showing rage or talking about seeking revenge.
Extreme mood swings.
3. Consider implementing a comprehensive psychological health and safety management program to help improve overall workplace culture and resolve issues more effectively. This program would include eliminating stigma related to mental health issues; developing an inclusive working environment for all; and ensuring that you have a confidential Employee and Family Assistance Program (EAP) that offers support and counseling services and that your employees are aware of it.
4. Educate all employees and support those are struggling. This effort includes mental-health awareness and suicide prevention education to employees; reducing stigmas relating to protected classes, mental illness, substance use disorder, and suicide; expanding awareness of mental illness and addiction; encouraging help-seeking for those at-risk; creating a caring and supporting work environment, including the promotion of listening and interpersonal skills to help all employees.
If you or someone you know is having suicidal thoughts or exhibiting suicidal behavior, help is just a phone call away via the National Suicide Prevention Hotline, 800-273-8255. One phone call can save a life.
In its press release announcing a recently filed sexual harassment lawsuit, the EEOC says that a New York-based housing development and property management company violated Title VII when its owner and top executive repeatedly subjected female employees to crude sexual comments, called them sexually obscene names and showed them pornography.
And, as bad as that sounds, that description barely scratches the surface of what is actually alleged to have happened in this workplace.
The complaint that the EEOC filed fills in the blanks with disgusting details about the daily barrage of unwelcome and offensive misconduct.
The owner made crude remarks about his sexual interests, such as: that his âdick may not always work but my tongue willâ; and that he âknows how to satisfy a womanâ and âlikes the way they [women] taste.â
The owner made unwelcome and sexualized comments about female employeesâ bodies, such as: telling a female employee that her body was curvy and reminded him of his wifeâs body, telling another that he admired her breasts, and telling another that he âfelt like a kid in a candy store,â when she bent over.
When angry, the owner called female employees hostile, abusive, and demeaning names, such as: âcunts.â
The owner repeatedly put his hand down his pants and touched his genitals while speaking to female employees.
The owner showed female employees pornography on his cell phone.
The women say in the complaint that this egregiously offensive misconduct happened on daily or near-daily basis, that their complaints to the company’s CFO fell on deaf ears, and that it finally compelled them to quit.
Iâm speechless, other than to say that if these allegations are true, âCongratulations, Birchez Associates and Rondout Properties Management of Kingston, N.Y., youâre the 14th nominee for the worst employer of 2019!â
