Tag: human resources

Posted on

Thanks for the Financial Advice, But …

Andie Burjek, Working Well blog

There was a lot of upheaval on Twitter earlier this week for JPMorgan, which tweeted something many people found frustrating.

The bank has since deleted the tweet, but here’s the text that went along with it:

You: why is my balance so low
Bank account: make coffee at home
Bank account: eat food that’s already in the fridge
Bank account: you don’t need a cab, it’s only three blocks
You: I guess we’ll never know
Bank account: seriously?
#MondayMotivation

“JPMorgan’s tweet demonstrated a stunning tone-deafness about the economic realities facing ordinary Americans — including the big bank’s own minimum wage employees,” according to the LA Times. The article went on to quote a personal finance expert who says the genre of personal finance has long been discredited.

I’m reminded of an op-ed I read on Vice last year. The frustrated author wrote: “Sometime last year, I started frequently googling ‘why am I poor’ and ‘how do I stop being poor.’ Every result insisted the problem is I go out too much (I don’t go out, I’m too tired), I don’t have a savings account (I don’t have enough kick around cash to open a savings account), or I’m not planning my money right (I plan to pay my rent and then cry in a corner until my next paycheck, does that count?) … Financial advice is geared toward the financially stable who make bad financial choices, like investing in bitcoin this year or getting bangs after a breakup.”

I believe there is a lesson here for companies that already have or are considering financial wellness programs. Mostly, if you’re not paying your employees enough (like many minimum-wage employees or some entry-level employees), financial advice could come across as pretty much nonsense. See the Vice article above.

I would agree with that. I’m reminded of a great Twitter thread I saw a few weeks ago.

Responses included, “Ah that’s great because my landlord just started accepting snacks for rent payments.” Also, “What’s amazing is employers pitch these things as benefits, and not like, I dunno, good health coverage or a retirement plan.” Also, “my starting salary at entry level was $36k… 15 YEARS AGO.”

And, my favorite:

It’s a good reminder that things organizations call “perks” won’t appeal to people who aren’t making enough money. Trying to push “financial advice” as a perk to someone who’s living paycheck-to-paycheck or someone who’s seeing everyday expenses continuously rise while their salary stays pretty much the same, for example, will realistically solicit a much more bitter reaction than you’d hope for.

I’m not saying financial wellness programs and free financial advice have zero value, but they’re a tiny piece in the puzzle. They address a symptom (money problems), not the cause. People have bills, debt, student loans and medical bills to pay, and salaries have not been rising at the same rate as everything else. People’s money problems exist in this broader environment where everything (including education) costs more, and fair compensation is more useful for employees than free advice.

As someone relatively early in her career (who hopefully will be making much more money as I grow older), I do want to acknowledge that money advice can be helpful. My parents and other family members have given me helpful, necessary guidance over the years, and I’m very thankful for that. However, even I understand that personal spending habits are just one aspect of how you’re doing financially.

There are also these macro factors that cannot be ignored.

Also in Working Well: Expanding Employee Access to Mental Health Care

Posted on

Poor Internal Communication Can Be a Costly Mistake for Businesses

employee communications

Poor internal communication can have some seriously negative impacts on a company — poor morale, high employee turnover and lower employee productivity, to name a few. Worse yet, these can lead to a lasting effect on a company’s bottom line.

employee communicationsStatistics show that plenty of businesses could stand to improve in this area. According to a 2018 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. study, 60 percent of companies don’t have a long-term internal communication strategy, though about half said they wanted to make improving leadership communication a top priority.

Also read: How to use technology in your internal communications strategy

Additionally, replacing a worker can cost a company 33 percent of that worker’s annual salary. And lower morale leads to actively disengaged employees, which results in reduced productivity. Productivity loss costs the U.S. a whopping $550 billion each year, according to a Gallup report. Turnover and lower morale can also make it more difficult for a company to attract the talent it needs to move forward.

These problems should give businesses powerful incentive to improve communication with employees.

Three Internal Communication Problems to Avoid

Here are some of the most common communication problems companies face and how to avoid them:

  1. Using outdated communication methods. With many companies going paperless, email has become the primary form of communication because it’s quick and efficient. However, it can also be a source of decreased productivity, as employee inboxes can quickly get cluttered with frivolous emails that hide important messages. The constant influx of new messages can also be a distraction from completing important tasks.

Companies can try focusing on mobile-driven communication instead. Company apps such as G Suite, Asana and Slack offer a new way to communicate and engage employees via their smartphones or tablets. This is especially ideal as the workforce demographics are changing to include nontraditional employees like remote workers, contract-based workers and freelancers.

An employee app provides workers with easy access to corporate information and workplace tools while cutting out the clutter of irrelevant messages and keeping all employees on the same page. Many employees also prefer the use of apps over email. For example, our clients and even some vendors prefer communicating via Slack channels rather than email to touch base quickly and share relevant documents.

  1. Not having an internal communication strategy. Many times, companies place their focus on putting a solid strategy in place for external communications with their customers, but developing an internal communication strategy is just as important. In fact, poor internal communication, along with poor coaching of frontline workers, can result in poor communication with customers. This limits a company’s ability to build a sense of loyalty among customers. Here are some tips to help you start building an internal communication strategy that works:
  • Assess your current internal communication and where you want to be. What has worked successfully and what hasn’t?
  • Identify and track key metrics. What data points matter to you? Is it how many people access your intranet, social media shares and comments from your staff, or customer service issues? Identifying and setting goals that align with your business objectives will be important.
  • Identify and segment your internal audience. Not all communication needs to go to everyone.
  • Identify your communication tools. This can include email, face-to-face meetings, social media, an intranet, company apps and more. Pick the channel that works best for the audience and the type of message you are communicating.
  1. A lack of feedback. A lack of feedback can cause employees to feel like their voices aren’t being heard and can have a significant impact on employee turnover. HR professionals and managers often communicate with employees about policies and procedures without taking the time to listen to them. If you want to implement a comprehensive communication strategy, it should include two-way communication.

Not only does listening to employee issues and concerns improve productivity and build loyalty, but it’s also an opportunity to learn about issues or concerns before they escalate into a formal complaint.

Start a feedback loop process through authentic and consistent communication between managers and employees. Providing feedback benefits a company by increasing engagement and helping to move the company forward. Up to 80 percent of an organization’s opportunity for improvement comes from frontline employees.

Now that you understand what’s at stake when a company has poor internal communication, you can begin taking the necessary steps to avoid these pitfalls. If you don’t take the time to develop a solid strategy, you’re putting your company at risk of losing touch with employees in addition to losing money.

Posted on

A Cautionary Tale on Why We Background Check Employees

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Here is a cautionary tale on why employers should conduct thorough background checks on employers.

In late 2013, Kristl Thompson, Ashley Raby and Corbie Leslie filed a lawsuit against the Scott Fetzer Co. (doing business as “The Kirby Company”), Crantz Development, and John Fields. The women claimed Fields had sexually assaulted them (including verbal abuse and harassment, inappropriate touching, forced sexual acts, and rape) on numerous occasions between May 2012 and January 2013. A number of these allegations resulted in felony and misdemeanor convictions against Fields.

Fields had worked on and off since the 1970s for Crantz (a factory distributor of Fetzer-manufacured Kirby vacuums) as an independent dealer of Kirby vacuums. Over his decades of work, he had been charged with numerous criminal offenses, including embezzlement, unlawful imprisonment, domestic abuse, and rape.

In their civil lawsuit, the women claimed that Fetzer and Crantz were negligent in hiring Fields and allowing him to go on sales trips with them. The women also asserted claims against Fetzer alone for negligently failing to take appropriate precautions to prevent its independent contractors from hiring employees like Fields, and for negligent supervision of its independent distributor in its hiring practices.

The women alleged that after receiving Fields’s application to become a Distributor Trainee, Kirby conducted a limited background check on Fields, which showed that Fields had lied about his prior criminal record. They further alleged that had Kirby conducted a national search instead of a regional search, it would have discovered his criminal record was much more substantial than he disclosed (including rape). Nevertheless, with knowledge that “Fields had spent almost a year in jail for beating up his wife in 2000, and despite the fact that Kirby knew that Fields lied about his criminal record, Kirby approved Fields to be a Distributor Trainee.”

A year later, Fields applied to become a Factory Distributor. According to the women, Fields “again lied about his criminal record and Kirby again learned of his criminal record.” Despite again learning about Fields’s criminal past, “Kirby approved Fields’ application to become a Factory Distributor.” In the following years, Fields continued to commit crimes, including “forcible rape, first degree domestic violence, unlawful imprisonment, and assault.” While Fields was awaiting trial in the forcible rape case, Kirby learned that he had defrauded elderly customers. That crime appears to have been the tipping point for Kirby, and it terminated his factory distributorship.

Yet, after Fields’ release from prison in February 2012, Kirby rehired him, and he began selling their vacuums again. It was during this period of employment that he sexually assaulted Thompson, Raby, and Leslie.

I pulled these horrible facts from The Scott Fetzer Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. (6th Cir. 4/30/19) [pdf], an insurance coverage dispute relating to the long-since-resolved underlying claims brought by Thompson, Raby, and Leslie.

I hope, however, we can all spot the mistakes made here in screening and hiring Fields.

    1. It’s no longer acceptable to limited criminal background checks on employees locally or regionally. Our society is mobile, and the background checks we are conducting on potential hires should reflect this mobility by being national in scope. Almost all criminal records are available online, and there is really no excuse to do anything other than a national search.
    2. When you discover that an employee has lied about their criminal background, the only resolution is termination. The employment relationship is all about trust, and when that trust is broken the relationship is irreparably damaged.
    3. I’m all for second chances and redemption, but an individual with a history of rape and domestic abuse is un-hireable. Convince me otherwise.
    4. Why rehire someone after they are released from prison for rape, especially with all of this back story? This fact is the most head-scratching of them all.

There was little chance this story was going to have a happy ending. Let’s all learn from it by reviewing our own background screening and hiring processes.

Posted on

I Really Thought People Knew Better Not to Advertise Jobs ‘for Whites’

Cynet Systems, an IT and engineering staffing company, had a viral mess on its hands over the weekend after it posted a job that asked for candidates, “Preferably Caucasian.”

Helana McCabe asked a very simple question on Twitter:

Uh, hey @cynetjobs – what’s with this?

Your job listing for a mid-senior level business development position’s top qualification is “Preferably Caucasian”

How could you POSSIBLY think that’s okay?

Uh, hey, it’s very, VERY not OK.
Her tweet, at the time of publication, received 11,249 likes, 6,752 retweets, and 622 comments.

It took Cynet Systems 44 hours(!) to respond, with this tweet:

Cynet apologizes for the anger & frustration caused by the offensive job post. It does not reflect our core values of inclusivity & equality. The individuals involved have been terminated. We will take this as a learning experience & will continue to serve our diverse community.

Its CEO, Nikhil (Nick) Budhiraja, initially tweeted that the job posting was a “terrible mistake,” and that the person responsible had been sent for retraining. Apparently, someone told him that the company needed to take a stronger stand against racism, because that tweet no longer exists, and “sent for retraining” is now “terminated.”

A few thoughts.
First, what the holy hell? Do we not know better in 2019 (not to mention, 2009, or 1999, or 1969 … or, really, ever) that we can’t advertise jobs for “Caucasians”? This is HR 101. There should not be any lesson that needs to be taught here, period.
Second, you can prefer age, sex, religion, or national origin, but only if it’s a bona fide occupational qualification for the position. To qualify as a BFOQ, a job qualification must relate to the essence, or to the central mission, of the employer’s business. A classic example of a BFOQ is safety-based mandatory retirement ages for airline pilots. Race or color, however, can never, ever be a BFOQ.
Third, this is not a training problem. If your recruiters do not know that they cannot prefer white candidates, they should not be recruiting for you.
Finally, 44 hours is way too late to respond to a 2019 crisis. When a story goes viral, your company needs to get out in front of it immediately. As bad as this crisis is, Cynet Systems made it that much worse by waiting almost two full days to publish its response. Cynet Systems has now been labeled as a racist company. The offensive job posting certainly created that perception, but its 44-hour delay in responding let the story, and the perception it created, percolate and fester. Every hour you let a viral story go un-responded-to adds time exponentially to undo the harm, if it can ever be truly undone.
So let this be a lesson to you and your business. Know who’s hiring for you, know what they are posting and do not wait to respond to bad press or bad social media.
Posted on

In Lamps Plus v. Varela, Supreme Court Signs Off on Death by a Thousand Cuts

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Lingchi was a form of torture and execution used in China from roughly 900 BC until China banned it in 1905.

It translates variously as the slow process, the lingering death, or slow slicing. It’s more commonly known as “death by a thousand cuts,” in which the torturer uses a knife to methodically remove portions of the body over an extended period of time, ultimately resulting in death.

On April 24, in Lamps Plus v. Varela, the Supreme Court held that parties to an arbitration agreement cannot be required to arbitrate their claims as a class action unless they specifically agreed to do so in the arbitration agreement.

Management-side employment lawyers will herald this decision, along with Epic Systems v. Lewis (which held that agreements that compel employees to waive their rights to file or participate in class or collective actions and individually arbitrate their claims are valid under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act), as the death knell for wage/hour and other employment law class and collective actions. And, they are probably right. But, is this result a good result for employers?

I’ve previously discussed by distaste for arbitration as a forum for employment disputes. In sum: I do not think it’s the panacea many employers believe it to be; employers should instead consider jury trial waivers to cut the risk of runaway juries, and contractually shortened statutes of limitations to otherwise limit risk.

Also, however, consider whether by preventing employees from litigating claims as class or collective actions you are inflicting lingchi on your business. Yes, class actions are large, and unwieldy, and expensive. But they also offer the opportunity for finality. You will resolve the issue in one lone (albeit large) case. Alternatively, if you require employees to litigate their wage/hour claims (for example) in individual lawsuits, instead of facing one claim, you will expose your business to dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of individual claims, each carrying with it a small amount of damages for unpaid wages, and a large exposure for an attorneys’ fee award in each case. And while attorneys’ fees are the number one risk factor for employers in wage/hour class and collective actions, would you rather expose yourself to one potential award of fees, or dozens, hundreds, or thousands? And, don’t forget about arbitration fees, which, often times, employers are contractually obligated to pay in full.

So, before you jump on the class-action waiver bandwagon, talk to your employment lawyer and consider whether it’s really in the best interest of your business. Do you want one larger cut, or thousands of smaller ones?

Posted on

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

Workforce Editorial Team Nabs Gold at ASBPE Awards

Human Capital Media editorial staffers brought home top honors in video, print design and online writing at the regional American Society of Business Publishers and Editors Awards banquet last night in Chicago.

Video Editor Andrew Lewis won Gold in the News Video category for the Workforce video, “Voting on the Clock Works as an Engagement Tool,” and the Silver award in the Tutorial Video category for the Workforce video, “How-to HR: Onboarding New Hires.” 

Art Director Theresa Stoodley captured Gold in the Print Design/Opening Page/Spread-Illustration for the Workforce feature, “All Eyes on You.” 

And former Chief Learning Officer Associate Editor Ave Rio took Gold in the Online/Web How-to Article category for the CLO story, “How to Prepare for Active Shooters in the Workplace.”

Lewis and Stoodley also are nominated for ASBPE national honors, which will be handed out in May in Pensacola, Florida. 

Posted on

When Workplace Training Goes Very, Very Wrong

active shooter training

A few months ago I participated in active-shooter training.

I presented harassment training for a local manufacturer and at its conclusion the company played a 10-minute video explaining to its employees what to do in an active-shooter situation.

Generally I’m not a fan of training videos. They tend to be boring, poorly acted and ineffective. This one, however, was quite effective. It was not only chilling to watch, but, a few months out, I still recall the ABCs of what to do during an active shooter (Avoid, Barricade, Confront).

An Indiana school district, however, had a different idea of how to train its employees to prepare for an active shooter.

This employer had its employees shot in the back, execution style, with plastic pellets.

Vox offers the details.

Local law enforcement carried out the drill with the teachers of Meadowlawn Elementary School in Monticello, Indiana, in January, the Indiana State Teachers Association said in a meeting with state legislators on Wednesday. The drill involved dividing the teachers into small groups and instructing them to face a classroom wall and kneel. Then, deputies with the White County Sheriff’s Office fired plastic pellets into the backs of more than 20 teachers without warning. Several teachers were injured, a representative for the district’s union said, though none have publicly come forward about the incident.

The employees’ union further detailed on Twitter the mental anguish its members suffered.

Indiana State Teachers Association@ISTAmembers
 · 
Replying to @ISTAmembers

During active shooter drill, four teachers at a time were taken into a room, told to crouch down and were shot execution style with some sort of projectiles – resulting in injuries to the extent that welts appeared, and blood was drawn.

Indiana State Teachers Association@ISTAmembers

The teachers were terrified, but were told not to tell anyone what happened. Teachers waiting outside that heard the screaming were brought into the room four at a time and the shooting process was repeated.

This is NUTS.
We all want our teachers to know how to keep our children safe in the event of an active shooter. I can’t believe I’m typing this … but mock executions are not the answer. To look at this another way, we want to end sexual harassment, but we’re not molesting our employees either.
Sometimes, a training video is all you need.
Posted on

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

Flatulence as Harassment? It’s a Thing in Australia

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
An Australian court has rejected an employee’s claim that his supervisor unlawfully harassed him by farting on him.
David Hingst sought 1.8 million Australian dollars ($1.3 million) in damages based on a claim his supervisor would enter his small, windowless office several times a day and “break wind on him or at him … thinking this to be funny.”

According to NBC Chicago, Hingst said that his supervisor at Construction Engineering, Greg Short, would “fart behind me and walk away. He would do this five or six times a day.” For his part, Hingst would respond by spraying Short with deodorant and calling him “Mr. Stinky.”

The court was not persuaded that the stink bombs were illegal.

In oral submissions, the applicant put the issue of Mr Short’s flatulence to the forefront. He submitted that ‘flatulence is substance’, not merely peripheral, and that the judge should have so found. The applicant submitted that the flatulence constituted assaults, and challenged the notion that he had accepted that the issue was peripheral.

Yet, the court found that the “farting” was not “bullying in the ‘legal sense.’”

This case got me to thinking, has an American tribunal ever dealt with a similar issue?

The closest I could find is Stanford v. Department of the Army, an EEOC decision. The case involved a white male alleging race and sex discrimination. The allegations stemmed from what he perceived as the Department’s different treatment of his farting in the presence of female co-workers as compared to that of an African American co-worker.

Complainant argues that he was “written up” because a Black female accused him of “farting” …. He argues that Black males can “fart” in the presence of the Deputy and other co-workers and not be disciplined….

We find … that complainant’s harassment claim is severe or pervasive enough to state a claim of harassment.

I’m not sure I would have reached that same result.

But here’s the thing. Can we all just act like adults? Yes, farts can be funny. My 10-year-old laughs at them all the time. But he’s 10. He’s not a grown-up, working at a job. So can we all try to act like grown-ups, treat each other with respect, and not make a federal case out of every trivial thing that happens at work? We will all be the better for it.