Skip to content

Workforce

Tag: retaliation

Posted on October 19, 2020June 29, 2023

The 10th nominee for the “Worst Employer of 2020” is … the Callous Car Dealer

COVID-19, coronavirus, public health crisis

I continue to shake my head at the callousness of employers during this pandemic. Consider this example from The Oregonian, which earns its spot as the 10th nominee for the Worst Employer of 2020.

A finance manager at a used car dealership in Portland was fired by his boss during a staff meeting for questioning the company’s alleged cover-up of a coronavirus cluster, a lawsuit claims.

McCrary contends his boss directed employees to conceal a COVID-19 outbreak to maintain business profits and customer visits to the showroom….

At least two workers tested positive and a general manager exhibited symptoms but refused to be tested, the lawsuit says. Two “significant others” of employees also tested positive, the suit says.…

His suit claims that Lapin didn’t require social distancing or take other safety measures at work in light of the coronavirus pandemic and had fired another sales representative who was worried in spring about coming into work.

Worst Employer of 2020 The lawsuit further alleges that the owner fired McCrary in an “alcohol and drug-induced rage” during an all-staff meeting after McCrary had raised health and safety concerns following the outbreak, screaming, “Everyone, everyone Shawn is fired – get the (expletive) out of my company!”
McCrary’s lawsuit also quotes this text message the owner sent after the staff became aware of the positive cases: “Keep this down please. Don’t share this information with anyone since we do not want to scare away business.”
A worthy nominee, indeed.
Posted on October 7, 2020

Could White House employees file an OSHA complaint?

coronavirus

Monday night saw President Donald Trump dramatically return to the White House after his three-day stay at Walter Reed Medical Center for COVID-19.

We saw Marine One land on the White House lawn, President Trump emerge and walk up the stairs to the White House, remove his mask for a photo op, enter his home with his mask still in his pocket, reemerge for a reshoot, and again enter the White House maskless.

It’s that last part I want to talk about. HuffPost asks if White House employees could lodge an OSHA complaint about the President’s COVID recklessness? I’d answer that question with a solid and resolute “thumb’s up.” The bigger question, however, is whether OSHA would do anything about it.

OSHA, the federal agency responsible for employee health and safety, presumably also regulates the health and safety of White House employees. I know of no OSHA standard that exempts them.

That said, OSHA also does not have a specific standard addressing viral pandemics. Instead, it regulates this outbreak via its general duty clause: “Each employer shall furnish to each of [its] employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.”

It’s that “general duty clause” that could cause the White House fits if its employees take their COVID complaints to OSHA.

According to the Associated Press, Secret Service agents and White House staff are seriously pissed.

Several [Secret Service agents] who spoke with The Associated Press expressed concern over the cavalier attitude the White House has taken when it comes to masks and distancing. Colleagues, they said, are angry, but feel there’s little they can do.…

[T]hree former employees … expressed concern about the health of current workers, but were too afraid to speak publicly. Many are Black or Latino, among the demographic groups that have been more vulnerable to the virus.

Disgruntled employees are the employees most like to file a complaint with a federal agency such as OSHA. And at this moment in history, it seems like there are a large number of disgruntled employees working inside the White House.

Of course, as the HuffPost aptly points out, “Given the retributive nature of the Trump administration, any worker who wants to call in OSHA should be concerned about retaliation. Workers can file complaints anonymously to protect themselves, but those are less likely to receive a thorough investigation than ones with a name attached.” Perhaps this will be this administration’s saving grace on this issue — the fear of anyone to do anything about it. That and the fact that OSHA is not all that likely to investigate or fine its boss.

Additionally, OSHA doesn’t have the best record investigating COVID-related issues. According to former OSHA head David Michaels, “This is far and away the most significant worker safety crisis in OSHA’s history, and OSHA has failed to step up to the plate. OSHA has failed to use really any of its powers to address it . …  It’s hard to take OSHA seriously.”

What hasn’t OSHA done?

  • It hasn’t issued any temporary standards to address issues specific to the COVID pandemic.
  • It hasn’t done anything more than issue voluntary guidance with little to no legal risk or ramifications for noncompliance.
  • It hasn’t launched many investigations over COVID-related complaints—OSHA has only opened 184 investigations stemming from the 8,856 complaints it’s received related to COVID-19 (an inspection rate of less than 3 percent).
  • It hasn’t levied any significant fines or penalties, unless you consider the $13,494 fine levied against Smithfield Foods stemming from one the countries worst workplace coronavirus outbreaks.
Our nation has failed its COVID-19 test in many glaring ways. OSHA is just one example. The White House’s current messaging on the ongoing pandemic is emblematic of the safety issues that many employers are handling (and handling better than the White House) on a daily basis.
Don’t act like the White House. Require masks at all times. Promote good hand-washing hygiene.
Enforce a minimum of six feet of physical distancing. Mandate isolation for COVID+ employees and quarantine for those in close contact with anyone COVID+.
Your employees are trusting you to keep them safe. Do not fail this test.
Posted on August 19, 2020

41,214 reasons not to fire employees who request FFCRA leave

concerted activity
A San Jose, California, manufacturer has reached an agreement with the Department of Labor’s Wage & Hour Division to pay 17 employees $41,214 for wrongly denying their requests for paid coronavirus sick leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Specifically (and much worse than that description sounds), the employer terminated each of the 17 employees after they requested paid leave under the FFCRA.

According to the DOL, “The employer’s action resulted in a violation of the FFCRA.”

No kidding!
In announcing this settlement, the DOL reminds employers that they should call the agency for assistance with FFCRA compliance, that it has online educational tools to help avoid violations, that its website contains information to help employers understand the FFCRA, and that it published an FFCRA poster to explain the Act’s requirements.
All of these statements are true. But should an employer really need a website or a poster to tell it not to retaliate against employees who ask for paid leave under a federal statute? 🤦‍♂️
Small employers, if you’re not paying attention to the FFCRA, you should be. The Department of Labor certainly is.
Posted on July 6, 2020July 8, 2020

Tesla fires workers for staying home after giving them permission to stay home

reopen businesses

“Carlos, there is no need to feel that you are going to lose your job. If at this time you do not feel comfortable returning to work, you can stay home without penalty and take the time unpaid.”

That email, sent from Tesla’s acting human resources director to a now terminated employee, will be central to that employee’s wrongful termination lawsuit pending against the automaker.

The employee claims that Tesla retaliated against him because he pressured the company to release information about its health and safety protocols following reports of employees testing positive for coronavirus after returning to work in late May.

The timing does not look great for Tesla. The “you can stay home without penalty” email came one day before the employee spoke out against Tesla at a news conference about conditions at the plant and his fear of returning to work … and one day prior to Tesla emailing the employee to tell him his job was at risk.

Within hours of that news conference, Tesla’s human resources department emailed a “Failure to Return to Work” notice, advising of termination without an immediate return to work. The employee (and a co-worker who received a similar notice and also openly questioned the company’s safety during the pandemic) opted to remain on unpaid leaves because of their health and safety concerns. They claim their terminations are in retaliation for their vocal questioning of their employer’s commitment to safely reopening and operating its manufacturing plant.

Also read: Lawsuit highlights risk of businesses not reopening safely and correctly

There is nothing inherently unlawful about ending an employee’s leave of absence and requiring their return to work (even during this pandemic). However, when an employer ends the leave within hours of an employee openly and vocally challenging health and safety issues, retaliation becomes a real concern.

Whistleblower retaliation is one of the biggest legal risks facing employers during this pandemic. OSHA, the National Labor Relations Act, and myriad state laws protect employees from retaliation for raising health and safety concerns at work. Instead of risking a lawsuit by removing a “difficult” employee from the workplace, employers should view them as an opportunity to improve. Why are they raising issues? How do they feel unsafe? What can we do to improve and make all employees feel safer? If we are doing everything we can to provide as safe of a workplace as possible, how do we communicate that fact to employees?

Also read: When employees return to work, consider these guidelines

Far from an opportunity to terminate, employee health and safety complaints (always, but especially during this pandemic) present an opportunity to listen, improve, and strengthen your relationship with your employees. Employers that do not understand this opportunity are risking dangerous and costly retaliation lawsuits.

Also read: COVID-19 and workers’ compensation

Posted on February 12, 2020June 29, 2023

Even though this employer won its ex-employee’s retaliation lawsuit, don’t do what it did

employment law

Family businesses are difficult to manage. They become even more difficult when the owners are spouses, and an employee accuses one of sexual harassment.

For example, consider Allen v. Ambu-Stat.

D’Marius Allen worked as an EMT for Ambu-Stat, owned by husband and wife Santos and Rita Ortiz. During the four months Allen worked for Ambu-Stat, she claimed that Santos subjected her to sporadic instances of verbal sexual harassment. For example, he told her she was “pretty” and “fine as hell.” She also alleged he made three sexually suggestive comments to her.

Three months into Allen’s employment, Rita called her into her office and accused her of discussing her sex life with Santos. Allen demurred that Santos started any sexual conversations between them. Rita ended that meeting by warning Allen that it was inappropriate to discuss her personal life with Santos, as he was her employer. One week later, Rita delivered a disciplinary employee correction form to Allen for having had an “inappropriate conversation” with Santos while on duty. The form stated that “having such conversations while on duty with co-workers (or especially with my husband) is extremely inappropriate and unacceptable.”

Allen responded by explaining to Rita, in writing, that Santos had asked her if her boyfriend was good at oral sex, in response to a lyric in a song on the radio. Allen also wrote that she did want to be “involved in any sexual harassment.” Finding Allen’s explanation to be “outlandish,” “disturbing,” and “full of lies,” Rita terminated her.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Allen’s retaliation claim. The court differentiated between bona fide opposition to unlawful discrimination or harassment (protected), as compared to an attempt to apologize and mend fences (not protected). The court concluded that Allen had engaged in the latter. Case dismissed. Employer wins.

This decision is baffling. Allen was in an extraordinarily difficult situation, harassed by one owner-spouse and having to justify her action to the other owner-spouse. She should not have to use “magic words” to express her discomfort in the situation. (Never mind that she actually did use the magic word “harassment”.)

An employer has the same anti-harassment and anti-retaliation obligations to an employee whether the accused harasser is a line worker or an owner. Take the allegations seriously, investigate, correct and do not retaliate. Ambu-Stat failed on each of these steps and is very lucky to have walked out of this case free and clear.

Posted on August 26, 2019

Is a Vacation During an FMLA Leave Inconsistent With an Employee’s Serious Health Condition?

A few months ago I wrote about an employee fired for taking a fishing trip while out on an FMLA leave. In that case, the court upheld the termination as lawful. Recently, however, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts considered a similar case and reached the opposite result.

Richard DaPrato, an IT manager for the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority, took an approved FMLA leave of absence to have a tumor removed from his right foot. During the last few weeks of his leave, DaPrato took a previously scheduled vacation to Mexico with his family, a trip he took every year. According to DaPrato, he limited his activities during his trip based on the limitations imposed by his foot surgery.

When the employer learned of DaPrato’s Mexican vacation, its HR director launched an immediate investigation, which included obtaining video of DePrato lifting luggage out of a car at the airport. DaPrato maintained that he did nothing that was inconsistent with the limitations set forth in his FMLA medical certifications. Nevertheless, the company fired him for misrepresenting his disability.

Also read: Does the FMLA Protect Organ Donation Surgery as a ‘Serious Health Condition?’

DePrato sued for FMLA retaliation, which resulted in a $1.3 million judgment.
On appeal, the court affirmed, and had this to say about whether and when an employee on FMLA leave can take a vacation.

We clarify today that an employer may validly consider an employee’s conduct on vacation — or, for that matter, anywhere — that is inconsistent with his or her claimed reasons for medical leave, when the employer has such information at the time the employer is evaluating whether leave has been properly or improperly used.

Here, DaPrato took FMLA leave to allow his foot to recover fully from surgery. Such recovery could take place in a warm climate as well as in a New England winter. That being said, vacationing while on FMLA leave may take either permissible or impermissible forms. An employee recovering from a leg injury may sit with his or her leg raised by the sea shore while fully complying with FMLA leave requirements but may not climb Machu Picchu without abusing the FMLA process. Careful consideration of the reasons for the medical leave and the activities undertaken, including the timeline for rehabilitation and recovery, are required to determine whether FMLA leave has been abused.

What can employers learn from this case? Don’t make a knee-jerk decision to fire an employee who does something recreational during his or her FMLA leave. Gather the facts and make a reasoned decision over whether the activity is, or is not, consistent with the medical reason(s) for the leave. Fishing while recovered from hernia surgery might be a tough sell for the employee. Convalescing on the beach while recovering from foot surgery, however, might be a different story. Without all of the information and facts coupled with a careful deliberation of their consistence or inconsistency with the FMLA leave, however, you might have a difficult (and costly) time justifying a decision if challenged in court.

Also read: Which Mental Health Service Does the FMLA Not Cover?

 

Posted on January 22, 2019June 29, 2023

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

 

I’ll let the EEOC do the heavy lifting on today’s nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 (the 4th thus far):

A federal jury rendered a verdict … awarding $850,000 in compensatory and punitive damages to a female farmworker at Favorite Farms in Dover, Fla., who was raped by her supervisor and reported it to police and management that same day.…

The evidence at trial showed that management at Favorite Farms, which primarily grows strawberries, failed to properly investigate the complaint, and instead sent the victim home from work without pay the next work day. Favorite Farms took no action against the harasser, leaving him to supervise women in the fields, despite evidence that this was not the first complaint of sexual harassment. Instead, Favorite Farms continued retaliating against the victim and forced her to take a leave of absence.

worst employer 2019

If you permit a rapist to keep supervising your employees after an employee complains to you and the police that he raped her, and you further punish the complaining employee by suspending her without pay, you might be the worst employer of 2019.

Thanks to Eric Meyer for bringing the nominee 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

Posted on October 26, 2016June 29, 2023

OSHA Doubles Down Against Retaliation

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

OSHA has had a busy October.

First, it announced that it has delayed enforcement, until Dec. 1, of the anti-retaliation provisions of its injury and illness tracking rule.

According to OSHA, “The anti-retaliation provisions were originally scheduled to begin Aug. 10, 2016, but were previously delayed until Nov. 10 to allow time for outreach to the regulated community.” While I hate to be appear cynical, I can’t help but think that the pending lawsuit challenging the legality of these rules has something to do with this delay.

Second, even though OSHA keeps delaying these rules, it continues its efforts to educate employers and employees about them. On Oct. 19, OSHA published both a memorandum and example scenarios interpreting these new anti-retaliation provisions.

So, let’s take a look at the types of scenarios OSHA believes will violate, and will not violate, its neWF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-11w anti-retaliation provisions.

Disciplinary Programs

The rule prohibits disciplining employees simply because they report work-related injuries or illnesses without regard to the circumstances of the injuries or illnesses, such as automatically suspending workers who report an injury or assigning them points that have future employment consequences. The rule also prohibits disciplining an employee who reports a work-related injury or illness under the pretext that the employee violated a work rule if the real reason for the discipline was the injury or illness report.

Illegal Retaliation (according to OSHA):

  • Employee is injured when he is stung by a bee at work, and he reports the injury to Employer. Employer disciplines Employee for violating a work rule requiring employees to “maintain situational awareness.” Employer only enforces the rule when employees get hurt.
  • Employee twists his ankle at work but does not immediately realize that he is injured because his ankle is not sore or swollen, and therefore he does not report the injury to Employer. The next morning, Employee’s ankle is sore and swollen, and he realizes he has the kind of injury he is required to report to Employer. He reports the injury to the employer that day. Employer disciplines Employee for failing to report his injury “immediately” as required by Employer’s injury reporting rules.

Non-Retaliation (according to OSHA):

  • Employee reports a hand injury that she sustained while operating a saw after bypassing the guard on the saw, contrary to the employer’s work rule. Employee’s hand injury required her to miss work for two days. Employer disciplined Employee for bypassing the guard contrary to its instructions. Employer regularly monitors its workforce for safety rule violations and disciplines employees who bypass machine guards regardless of whether they report injuries.
  • Employee twists her ankle at work but does not immediately realize that she is injured because her ankle is not painful or swollen, and therefore she does not report the injury to Employer. The next morning, Employee’s ankle is painful and swollen and she realizes it is the kind of injury she is required to report to Employer as soon as practicable. However, Employee does not report the injury after this realization, although she easily could have, and instead reports it several weeks later. Employer disciplines Employee for failing to report her injury as soon as practicable after realizing she has the kind of injury she is required to report.

Incentive Programs

The rule prohibits using incentive programs to penalize workers for reporting work-related injuries or illnesses. If an employee reports an injury or illness, and the employer subsequently denied a benefit as part of an incentive program, this denial may constitute retaliatory action against the employee for exercising his or her right to report an injury or illness.

Illegal Retaliation (according to OSHA):

  • Employer informs its employees that it will hold a substantial cash prize drawing for each work group at the end of each month in which no employee in the work group sustains a lost-time injury. Employee reports an injury that she sustained while operating a mechanical power press. Employee did not violate any employer safety rules when she sustained her injury. Employee’s injury requires her to miss work for two days. Employer cancels the cash prize drawing for that month for Employee’s work group because of Employee’s lost-time injury.
  • Employer informs its employees that it will hold a substantial cash prize drawing for each work group at the end of each month in which all members of the work group comply with applicable safety rules, such as wearing required fall protection. Employee sustains a lost-time injury when he falls from a platform while not wearing required fall protection. Employer cancels the cash prize drawing for Employee’s work group that month ostensibly because Employee failed to wear required fall protection. However, Employer’s employees routinely fail to wear required fall protection but the only time Employer cancels the cash prize drawing is when an employee reports an injury.

Non-Retaliation (according to OSHA):

  • Employer informs its employees that it will hold a substantial cash prize drawing for each work group at the end of each month in which all members of the work group comply with applicable safety rules, such as wearing required fall protection. Employee sustains a lost-time injury when he falls from a platform while not wearing required fall protection, and he reports the injury to Employer. Employer cancels the cash prize drawing for Employee’s work group that month because Employee failed to wear required fall protection. Employer actively monitors its workforce for compliance with applicable work rules and cancels the cash prize drawings when it discovers work rule violations regardless of whether the employee who violated the work rule also reported an injury.
  • Employer holds a party for all employees who complete a safety training course. Employee failed to attend the training because she was absent from work due to a work-related injury that she reported. Employer excluded Employee from the training-completion party because she did not complete the training. Employer consistently excluded all employees who failed to complete a training course from the training-completion party regardless of why they failed to complete the training, including those who were on vacation or absent because of a non-work-related injury or illness.

Drug Testing

OSHA plainly states that the rule does not prohibit drug testing of employees, including drug testing pursuant to the Department of Transportation rules or any other federal or state law (such as state workers’ compensation law). It only prohibits using drug testing, or the threat of drug testing, to retaliate against an employee for reporting an injury or illness. Employers may conduct post-incident drug testing if there is a reasonable possibility that employee drug use could have contributed to the reported injury or illness. However, if employee drug-use could not have contributed to the injury or illness, post-incident drug testing could constitute prohibited retaliation, as it would discourage injury reporting without contributing to the employer’s understanding of why the injury occurred .

Illegal Retaliation (according to OSHA):

  • Employer required Employee to take a drug test after Employee reported work-related carpal tunnel syndrome. Employer had no reasonable basis for suspecting that drug use could have contributed to her condition, and it had no other reasonable basis for requiring her to take a drug test. Rather, Employer routinely subjects all employees who report work-related injuries to a drug test regardless of the circumstances surrounding the injury. The state workers’ compensation program applicable to Employer did not address drug testing, and no other state or federal law requires Employer to drug test employees who sustain injuries at work.
  • Employer requires all employees who report lost-time injuries to take a drug test regardless of whether drug use could have contributed to the injury because the drug testing requirement is included in the collective bargaining agreement at the workplace. Employer drug tests Employee (who is covered by the collective bargaining agreement) when she reports a lost-time injury that could not reasonably have been caused by drug use, such as a bee sting or carpal tunnel syndrome. The employer had no reasonable basis for suspecting that drug use could have contributed to her injury and had no other reasonable basis for requiring the test.

Non-Retaliation (according to OSHA):

  • Employee was injured when he inadvertently drove a forklift into a piece of stationary equipment, and he reported the injury to Employer. Employer required Employee to take a drug test.
  • Employer drug tests all employees who report work-related injuries to the employer to get a 5% reduction in its workers’ compensation premiums under the state’s voluntary Drug-Free Workplace program. Employer drug tests Employee when she reports a work-related injury that could not reasonably have been caused by drug use, such as a bee sting or carpal tunnel syndrome.
  • Employer requires all employees who report lost-time injuries to take a drug test because the employer’s private insurance carrier provides discounted rates to employers that implement such a drug-testing policy. The relevant rate discount provisions in the private policy are identical to those in the applicable state workers’ compensation law. Employer drug tests Employee when she reports a lost-time injury that could not reasonably have been caused by drug use, such as a bee sting or carpal tunnel syndrome.

If OSHA’s new anti-retaliation rules go live, employer will have to study these examples as if they are gospel, as they will help employers navigate the increasingly complex world of OSHA compliance so as to avoid costly and complex retaliation complaints.

Jon Hyman’s post originally appeared on Meyers Roman’s Ohio OSHA Law Blog.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

Posted on August 30, 2016June 29, 2023

What Employers Can Learn from EEOC’s New Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

The EEOC on Aug. 29 published its final Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues. It’s the agency’s first formal guidance on this issue since 1998, and was long overdue.WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-11

After all, according to EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang, “Retaliation is asserted in nearly 45 percent of all charges we receive and is the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination.” She adds, “The examples and promising practices included in the guidance are aimed at assisting all employers reduce the likelihood of retaliation.”

The lengthy guidance addresses retaliation under each of the statutes enforced by EEOC, and includes a discussion of the separate “interference” provision under the ADA, which prohibits coercion, threats, or other acts that interfere with the exercise of ADA rights.

In addition to the enforcement guidance, the EEOC also simultaneously published a summary Q&A and a short Small Business Fact Sheet.

The guidance offers in depth discussions of protected activities, adverse actions, and causation, and is required reading for all employers. I’d like to focus on the document’s coda, titled, “Promising Practices,” which discusses policies, training, and organizational changes employers can implement to reduce the likelihood of retaliation.

A. Written Employer Policies
Employers should maintain a written, plain-language anti-retaliation policy, and provide practical guidance on the employer’s expectations with user-friendly examples of what to do and not to do. The policy should include:

  • Examples of retaliation that managers may not otherwise realize are actionable, including actions that would not be cognizable as discriminatory disparate treatment but are actionable as retaliation because they would likely deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity;
  • Proactive steps for avoiding actual or perceived retaliation, including practical guidance on interactions by managers and supervisors with employees who have lodged discrimination allegations against them;
  • A reporting mechanism for employee concerns about retaliation, including access to a mechanism for informal resolution; and
  • A clear explanation that retaliation can be subject to discipline, up to and including termination.

Employers should consider any necessary revisions to eliminate punitive formal or informal policies that may deter employees from engaging in protected activity, such as policies that would impose materially adverse actions for inquiring, disclosing, or otherwise discussing wages. Although most private employers are under no obligation to disclose or make wages public, actions that deter or punish employees with respect to pay inquiries or discussions may constitute retaliation under provisions in federal and/or state law.

B. Training

Employers should consider these ideas for training:

  • Train all managers, supervisors, and employees on the employer’s written anti-retaliation policy.
  • Send a message from top management that retaliation will not be tolerated, provide information on policies and procedures in several different formats, and hold periodic refresher training.
  • Tailor training to address any specific deficits in EEO knowledge and behavioral standards that have arisen in that particular workplace, ensuring that employees are aware of what conduct is protected activity and providing examples on how to avoid problematic situations that have actually manifested or might be likely to do so.
  • Offer explicit instruction on alternative proactive, EEO-compliant ways these situations could have been handled. In particular, managers and supervisors may benefit from scenarios and advice for ensuring that discipline and performance evaluations of employees are motivated by legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons.
  • Emphasize that those accused of EEO violations, and in particular managers and supervisors, should not act on feelings of revenge or retribution, although also acknowledge that those emotions may occur.
  • Include training for management and human resources staff regarding how to be responsive and proactive when employees do raise concerns about potential EEO violations, including basics such as asking for clarification and additional information to ensure that the question or concern raised is fully understood, consulting as needed with superiors to address the issues raised, and following up as soon as possible with the employee who raised the concern.
  • Do not limit training to those who work in offices. Provide EEO compliance and anti-retaliation training for those working in a range of workplace settings, including for example employees and supervisors in lower-wage manufacturing and service industries, manual laborers, and farm workers.
  • Consider overall efforts to encourage a respectful workplace, which some social scientists have suggested may help curb retaliatory behavior.

C. Anti-Retaliation Advice and Individualized Support for Employees, Managers, and Supervisors

An automatic part of an employer’s response and investigation following EEO allegations should be to provide information to all parties and witnesses regarding the anti-retaliation policy, how to report alleged retaliation, and how to avoid engaging in it. As part of this debriefing, managers and supervisors alleged to have engaged in discrimination should be provided with guidance on how to handle any personal feelings about the allegations when carrying out management duties or interacting in the workplace.

  • Provide tips for avoiding actual or perceived retaliation, as well as access to a resource individual for advice and counsel on managing the situation. This may occur as part of the standard debriefing of a manager, supervisor, or witness immediately following an allegation having been made, ensuring that those alleged to have discriminated receive prompt advice from a human resources, EEO, or other designated manager or specialist, both to air any concerns or resentments about the situation and to assist with strategies for avoiding actual or perceived retaliation going forward.

D. Proactive Follow-Up

Employers may wish to check in with employees, managers, and witnesses during the pendency of an EEO matter to inquire if there are any concerns regarding potential or perceived retaliation, and to provide guidance. This provides an opportunity to identify issues before they fester, and to reassure employees and witnesses of the employer’s commitment to protect against retaliation. It also provides an opportunity to give ongoing support and advice to those managers and supervisors who may be named in discrimination matters that are pending over a long period of time prior to reaching a final resolution.

E. Review of Employment Actions to Ensure EEO Compliance

Consider ensuring that a human resources or EEO specialist, a designated management official, in-house counsel, or other resource individual reviews proposed employment actions of consequence to ensure they are based on legitimate non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons. These reviewers should:

  • Require decisionmakers to identify their reasons for taking consequential actions, and ensure that necessary documentation supports the decision;
  • Scrutinize performance assessments to ensure they have a sound factual basis and are free from unlawful motivations, and emphasize the need for consistency to managers;
  • Where retaliation is found to have occurred, identify and implement any process changes that may be useful; and
  • Review any available data or other resources to determine if there are particular organizational components with compliance deficiencies, identify causes, and implement responsive training, oversight, or other changes to address the weaknesses identified.
While many of these tips seem like common-sense HR practices, the guidance serves a good reminder to review and, if necessary, update policies, train management and employees, and stay current with the law. While we, as employers and their advocates, tend to beat on the EEOC for its pro-employee advocacy, the proactive advice set forth in its retaliation guidance is solid and should not be ignored.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Posted on August 15, 2016July 25, 2018

Before the Whistle Blows: Creating a Speak-up Culture at Work

 

We’d all like to believe that the companies we work for are on the up-and-up. That from the top of the organizational chart to the bottom, everyone is on the same page when it comes to honest business practices and integrity.

The reality is that all organizations suffer lapses in ethics and compliance at times. Strengthening a company’s ethics program — and making it central to business strategy — won’t eliminate such lapses, but research shows it can reduce misconduct “by as much as 66 percent in organizations with effective programs,” according to the Ethics and Compliance Initiative, a report based on the findings of a panel of 24 thought-leaders including myself.

A key element of any effective ethics and compliance program involves promoting a “speak-up” culture that empowers employees to report suspected violations early.

Creating a “speak-up” culture puts a premium on ethical decision-making across the board with responsibility shared by all. But setting the tone and promoting that culture rests squarely on the shoulders of organizational leaders.

Their endorsement and modeling create an atmosphere of openness and trust that reassures employees who are understandably anxious about coming forward, whether out of fear of being let go or fear of being ostracized. Leaders who take employee concerns seriously and follow through send a strong message about integrity.

But as the ECI report highlights, there are several desirable and effective practices that broadly apply. They involve formal mechanisms as well as thoughtfulness and creativity. 

Provide Multiple Methods for Reporting

One starting place for organizations is to make sure that managers and supervisors receive thorough training in how to respond to and guide employees who come forward. These sessions may also expand to include full team training with hypothetical scenarios or case studies. Simultaneously, the organization ensures that the ethics and compliance policy is clear on how violations are identified and acted upon. Employees must know what constitutes misconduct within the organization and at what point it should be reported. From there, employees need to know the methods available for speaking up.

A high quality ethics program will have multiple methods for reporting concerns. These may include talking confidentially with a supervisor, an ethics and compliance officer or a human resources representative. Use of a company “hotline” or reporting website can also go a long way toward encouraging employees who are more comfortable reporting anonymously. Global organizations should include translation services as needed and the ability to report day or night. Whatever the method, the program should make clear how the complaint will next be handled.

Treat All Reporters the Same

When an employee chooses to report face-to-face, the manager should focus on the investigation of the allegation, not the reporter, no matter how often they have come forward or the perceived seriousness (or lack thereof) of the allegation. This approach will underscore a commitment to addressing problems while at the same time sending a message about consistency and fair treatment for all employees.

Managers may also wish to acknowledge the employee’s courage as doing so may help ameliorate a natural sense of discomfort or fear. Most importantly, the manager must emphasize the organization’s policy of non-retaliation for coming forward. Protecting an employee from blowback from the start and at every step of the way as the investigation proceeds supports a team commitment to resolution by the manager and the reporter.

As the issue proceeds, the organization should check in with the reporter periodically to make sure they have not experienced any retaliation. Substantiated instances must be brought to the attention of senior management and, as appropriate, the board.

For employees who just want to report the initial finding and skip the check-in process, the company can monitor their career success over the long term to get a read on well-being and any possible retaliation.

Acknowledge the Outcome

When a case concludes, where possible the organization will want to close the loop by communicating directly with the reporter about the outcome. Managers should reiterate their gratitude and admiration for coming forward. But the moment also presents a golden opportunity to reinforce the speak-up culture across the board.

Organizations should consider sharing the results with all employees in a manner that does not include identifying details about the parties involved (such as an appropriately scrubbed employee newsletter entry). When the wrongdoing is very public, the organization should generally acknowledge the issues to all employees and the actions it took to rectify them.

Establishing a high quality ethics program with a strong speak-up culture requires thorough planning and commitment. It’s not a simple matter of checking off the one-size-fits-all boxes. Compliance is an ongoing process that requires frequent check-in and check-ups.

But it’s well worth it. Research shows that in organizations with effective ethics and compliance programs, reporting of wrongdoing to managers increased by 88 percent, according to the ECI Report. In the long run, promoting a speak-up culture not only helps to protect an organization from possible misconduct and reputational damage, but it also demonstrates the organization’s commitment to its employees.

Matthew Pachman is the chief risk and compliance officer at FTI Consulting. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.


 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress