sexual harassment – Page 2

November 18, 2019June 29, 2023

Gay Man Claims He’s the Victim of Discrimination Because of His Sexual Orientation; It’s the Least of His Employer’s Problems

Wesley Wernecke, an ex-employee of New York event planning company Eventique, claims in his recently filed suit that the company intentionally alienated him, ostracized him and shut him out of the business after its CEO learned Wernecke was gay.

NBC News shares the details of the allegations in Wernecke’s lawsuit.

Wernecke had just begun to work for Eventique …when [CEO Henry Liron] David began to push him out of his role … .

A week after he was hired, Wernecke’s co-workers commented on his “girly” engagement ring. When a co-worker asked if his wife wore a similar ring, Wernecke replied that his partner, Evan, did.

From that point on, tension developed between Wernecke and his co-workers and David that had not existed before, according to the complaint.

In the interim months, the complaint alleges, Wernecke was ostracized and excluded from professional meetings and office social events, passed over for assignments with large commissions and subject to discriminatory remarks.

David … would exclude Wernecke from company lunches and frequent after-work drinks with “the fellas” in his office, the lawsuit states, and at one point, David gave an account Wernecke had been working on to another employee without consulting Wernecke.

These allegations, however, are the least of Eventique’s problems. According to Wernecke’s lawsuit, David significantly cut his salary (from $145,000 to $58,000.) David’s justification (again, according to the lawsuit): so that Wernecke’s pay would be on par with “the other females in the office.”

That’s not just an admission of sex discrimination against Wernecke, but also an admission of wage discrimination against the company’s female employees.

My advice to Eventique? Get out ahead of this issue, conduct a pay equity audit as soon as possible, and adjust salaries and wages as needed. Because if I’m a woman working at Eventique, I’m interviewing employment lawyers this week.

My gut, however, tells me that if a CEO is brazen enough to (allegedly) make those statements, he’s brazen enough to take this lawsuit head on.

November 18, 2019June 29, 2023

6 States Now Mandate Sexual Harassment Prevention Training

The #MeToo era has prompted an increasing number of states to mandate sexual harassment prevention training in the workplace. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine and New York all have such laws in place.

Here is a look at the laws in these states, noting which employers are covered, deadlines for completion and other nuances.

California mandates training for employers with five or more employees. By January 2021, training must be provided to supervisory and non-supervisory employees within six months of employment or assuming a supervisory position. For seasonal/temporary employees or those hired to work for less than six months, training is mandated within 30 calendar days of hire or within 100 hours worked, whichever occurs first. Excepted are employees of temporary services employers, which must provide training to seasonal/temporary employees.

Supervisors must receive two hours of training, and nonsupervisory employees receive one hour in a classroom setting with an in-person trainer. An interactive method (such as a webinar or e-learning) is also permissible.

Employers may develop their own training modules or use the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s online training course. Employer-created training must be conducted by a trainer with expertise in the topic.

After Jan. 1, 2021, employers must provide training to each employee in California once every two years and maintain training documentation for at least two years.

Connecticut mandates training for employers with three or more employees. Those with fewer than three need only train supervisors. Existing employees must receive training by October 2020. Employees hired on or after Oct. 1, 2019, must receive training within six months of hire. Employers with fewer than three employees must train supervisors by October 2020. New supervisors must receive training within six months of assuming a supervisory position. Those hired on or after Oct. 1, 2019, also have six months to receive training.

Training must be two hours in a classroom-like setting and allow for questions. The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities is developing online training, but employers may develop their own curriculum.

Employers must provide updated training every 10 years. Training records should be maintained at least one year and, if a complaint is filed involving someone the employer trained, until that complaint is resolved.

Delaware mandates training for employers with 50 or more employees (not including applicants or independent contractors). Supervisory and nonsupervisory employees must receive training by January 1, 2020 or within one year of hire for new employees. No training is mandated for employees with less than six months of continuous employment or those employed by employment agencies.

While no minimum length or trainer requirements exist, training must be interactive and occur every two years. There is no recordkeeping requirement, but it is recommended employers retain documentation for two years.

In Illinois, beginning Jan. 1, 2020, employers with 15 or more employees, and all restaurant and bar employers (restaurants, coffee shops, cafeterias and sandwich stands that give or sell food to the public, guests or employees, as well as kitchen/catering facilities where food is prepared on premises and served elsewhere) must provide annual sexual harassment prevention training for all employees, regardless of classification.

The Illinois Department of Human Rights will offer a free model training program. While employers may use their own program, it must meet or exceed the minimum standards of the model program.

Restaurant and bar employers must include supplemental training material (to be prepared and released by IDHR in both Spanish and English) that addresses sexual harassment issues seen frequently in their industry, includes an explanation of manager liability and responsibility under the law.

Illinois does not have requirements for training format, trainers or retention of records.

Maine mandates training for employers with 15 or more employees. New employees must receive training within one year of hire, and supervisory and managerial employees must have it within one year of hire or starting a supervisory/managerial role.

Maine does not have requirements for format, trainers or frequency. Employers must keep records for at least three years.

New York mandates that as of Oct. 9, 2019, all employers must provide training to all employees who work any portion of time in New York, regardless of immigration status: exempt; non-exempt; part-time; seasonal; temporary; interns who work more than 80 hours in a calendar year and have worked at least 90 days; and independent contractors who have performed work for the employer for more than 80 hours in a calendar year and more than 90 days and have not received the training elsewhere. New employees should receive training as soon as possible if they start after the October deadline.

New York employers must use the model sexual harassment prevention training program provided by the New York State Division of Human Rights and the New York Department of Labor, or establish a program that equals or exceeds the minimum standards of the program.

The training can be in person or online but must be interactive. Employees cannot merely watch a video or read a document without a component of feedback or interaction.

The state Division of Human Rights recommends a live trainer, but the trainer need not be certified. New York does not currently certify or license training providers. Employers may use third-party vendors or organizations or existing employees or managers to deliver the annual training. Employers are encouraged to keep records. New York City employers must keep records for three years.

While the states identified here have passed laws mandating sexual harassment prevention training in the workplace, employers should contact its counsel for additional information and to conduct trainings that comply with all applicable laws.

November 12, 2019June 29, 2023

#MeToo Does Not Always Equal #FireHim

Just because an employee complains about harassment does not mean that if the allegations are founded the employer must fire the harasser.

Consider, for example, Abbood v. Texas Health & Human Servs. Comm. (5th Cir. 11/7/19).

Amanda Abbood, an employee of the Texas Health & Human Service Commission, complained to her supervisor that a co-worker, Matt Otts, had subjected her to sexually offensive and unwelcome conduct, including comments about her figure, discussing his marital problems and describing “movies on Netflix that have a highly sexual connotation.” When confronted, Otts admitted to the misconduct, but claimed he was just joking. Instead of firing Otts, the employer reprimanded him, counseled him, reassigned him to another unit and relocated his office away from Abbood.

Four months later, however, Abbood again complained about Otts, this time that he told her he wanted to “jump her bones.” This time, the employer immediately removed Otts from the building, placed him on emergency leave, and changed the office locks. After completing its investigation, the employer then fired Otts.

Abbood’s second complaint about Otts occurred the same day as she suffered her own workplace issue. She discovered a stray dog outside the office, and used the commission’s computer database to try to locate the owner. The employer fired Abbood for the inappropriate use of its data system, in violation of its Computer Use Agreement and a Data Broker Computer Security Agreement.

Abbood, however, alleged that she was fired because of her complaints about Otts, and that the employer acted inappropriately by not firing Otts after the first harassment investigation. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, disagreed.

HHSC is not liable under Title VII if it took “prompt remedial action” once it knew of Otts’s harassment. Abbood argues that Otts should have been fired when she first reported him in August 2016, and that HHSC’s response was ineffective because he harassed her again in December. But an employer “need not impose the most severe punishment” on an offending employee, so long as the remedial action is “reasonably calculated” to end the harassment. And [t]o be reasonably calculated to end the harassment, an employer’s actions need not end the harassment instantly.” “The test … is not whether the harassment stopped but whether the action taken by the employer was reasonably calculated to end the harassment.”

Here, the record reflects that HHSC took prompt remedial action.… When … Abbood complained a second time, Otts was immediately placed on emergency leave, the office locks were changed, and he was subsequently fired. These facts demonstrate that HHSC took prompt remedial action.

An employer’s obligation in responding to a harassment complaint is to investigate and, as the court points out, take “prompt remedial action” to reasonably ensure that the harassment stops. If it doesn’t stop (as was the case here), then remedial action must become more severe (as the employee didn’t get the message the first time).

For a first instance of harassment, however, while termination is a remedial option, is is not the only remedial option. As long as the employer acts reasonably and promptly under the circumstances, a court likely will not second-guess the employer’s handling and response.

October 15, 2019June 29, 2023

Poor Taste Does Not Amount to Prohibited Sexual Harassment

I once made the mistake of watching an episode of Orange is the New Black on an airplane.

The guy sitting behind was very uncomfortably enjoying the show along with me, and I shut it down.

Which brings me to Sims v. Met Council, a case in which an employee claimed her co-workers’ choice of television shows in the break room created a hostile work environment.

The show at issue is “Luke Cage,” which included some brief nudity. At the plaintiff’s request (and a brief argument) her co-workers changed shows. This incident repeated again later that day, with the co-workers again changing shows at the plaintiff’s request. It was undisputed that the show in question contained two scenes with nudity, each lasting less than a minute.

Stephanie Sims reported the incident to management, which assured her that the break-room television would no longer be able to connect to steaming services. Management also counseled the offending employees on the employer’s respectful workplace policies and its prohibition against retaliation.

The district court had little difficulty dismissing Sims’ hostile work environment claim.

First, her exposure to two brief scenes of nudity on a television in the drivers’ lounge cannot reasonably be perceived as hostile or abusive. … Considering all of the circumstances in the light most favorable to Sims, … she was simply not subject to severe or pervasive harassment.

And even if the brief incidents at issue here could somehow arise to objectively serious or pervasive harassment, Sims’s claim fails because there is no indication that she was subject to something to which male drivers were not exposed. The TV was on for all drivers, male and female, to see. The brief nude scenes were not directed at Sims because she was a female. Poor taste does not amount to prohibited sexual harassment.

And finally, … a Title VII plaintiff must also establish that her employer failed to take prompt remedial action when informed of the allegedly harassing behavior. Sims cannot make this showing here. The evidence, in fact, demonstrates the opposite: to a person, Sims’s managers responded to her complaints, attempted to comfort her, and took immediate action.

One employee’s television show is another’s harassment. And while this court almost certainly correctly concluded that a minute of nudity on a screen does not rise to the level of a hostile work environment, it’s nevertheless not a bad idea to take a stand against all nudity in the workplace so that you don’t end up in court making these arguments.

September 10, 2019June 29, 2023

The Supposed #MeToo Backlash Is Just Discrimination By Another Name

A recent study suggests that there has been a backlash against the #MeToo movement.

According to the Harvard Business Review, men are treating their females co-workers differently because of #MeToo.

19 percent of men said they were reluctant to hire attractive women.
21 percent said they were reluctant to hire women for jobs involving close interactions with men.
27 percent said they avoided one-on-one meetings with female colleagues.

This isn’t a #MeToo problem. It’s the problem that #MeToo is trying to fix. Indeed, Harvard Business Review could rewrite its headline to read, “More than one in four men admit to discriminating against female co-workers.”

Can women falsely accuse their male colleagues of sexual harassment? Absolutely … just as they could before the #MeToo movement. And just as men can falsely accuse women, and women each other, and men each other.

False accusations of harassment are not a #MeToo problem. They are systemic in any system that relies on employees to self-police and report misconduct via complaints. The remedy isn’t sexually segregated workplaces. The remedy is thorough and complete investigations of all complaints of harassment, and appropriate punishment for those who are found to have lodged false complaint.

The risk of false harassment complaints is not an excuse for sexual segregation at work. Instead, the risk of sexual segregation is the reason to double down on efforts to root out and end sexual harassment and other sex discrimination.

July 29, 2019June 29, 2023

#MeToo Hasn’t Killed the Office Romance, Just the Inappropriate Ones

According to the National Review, #MeToo killed the office romance.

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.

The article goes on to quote Ella Whalen, writing for Spiked.

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 wouldn’t 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 ‘grey area’ 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. …

It’s 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 colleague’s desk. We need to make the workplace a humane environment where sparks can once again fly.

Clickbait headlines aside, #MeToo hasn’t killed the office romance; it’s just killed the inappropriate office romance. The boss dating his (or her) subordinate. The co-worker that won’t take “no” for an answer. The improper or otherwise improper texter or emailer.

There’s 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, there’s 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 employee’s 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 employee’s 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 doesn’t mean that employees shouldn’t 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, isn’t whether these relationship are illegal (they’re 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 “love contract”)?
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. That’s just lazy employee management. Not all workplace relationships are toxic or unlawful, and if you’re diligent in your anti-harassment training and other efforts, you’ll be able to spot, catch, and handle the ones that are.

July 23, 2019June 29, 2023

The 14th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Horrible Harasser

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 “dick may not always work but my tongue will”; and that he “knows how to satisfy a woman” and “likes the way they [women] taste.”
- The owner made unwelcome and sexualized comments about female employees’ bodies, such as: telling a female employee that her body was curvy and reminded him of his wife’s body, telling another that he admired her breasts, and telling another that he “felt like a kid in a candy store,” when she bent over.
- When angry, the owner called female employees hostile, abusive, and demeaning names, such as: “cunts.”
- 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.

I’m speechless, other than to say that if these allegations are true, “Congratulations, Birchez Associates and Rondout Properties Management of Kingston, N.Y., you’re the 14th nominee for the worst employer of 2019!”

Thanks to Janette Levey Frisch for bringing this story 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 Fertile Firing

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

The 11th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the ****y Supervisor

The 12th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disguised Doctor

The 13th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Excoriating Executives

July 15, 2019June 29, 2023

Comic Book Defines a New Line in Workplace Harassment

harassment, define the line, sexual harassment training comic book — Nikki Larchar and Tina Todd

It was a conversation amongst colleagues at happy hour that sparked Nikki Larchar’s idea for Define the Line, a comic book training tool used to educate employees about workplace harassment and how to work through it.

“It started with a margarita, as many good stories do,” said Larchar, a co-founder of Define the Line along with Tina Todd. The two also co-founded HR consulting firm simplyHR.

“It just kind of came up in conversation that we had all taken trainings on sexual harassment in the workplace, but we all had stories of it happening and more importantly, a lot of stories of regret: regret that we didn’t speak up, that we didn’t report, that we didn’t do something about it,” Larchar added.

Define the Line goes a step beyond traditional sexual harassment training.

The idea sparked out of the need to provide people with the tools and resources to actually step in during harassment scenarios, rather than just a list of definitions.

“It doesn’t even have to be something that qualifies as sexual harassment but something that makes us feel awkward or uncomfortable,” Larchar said.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.” In 2017, the EEOC received 26,978 claims of harassment, of which just over half were sex-based and roughly a quarter of which were specifically designated as sexual harassment.

It’s important to note that these are just the cases that are fully reported and documented. These figures do not capture the incidents that go unreported, mishandled or perhaps fall into other categories of harassment that are less clearly defined.

Thus, with the utmost enthusiasm, Larchar and her business partner, Tina Todd, began spreading the word about their project through Kickstarter.

Larchar and Todd pooled their own funds into the initial launch of the project and then moved to crowd-sourcing.

“The Kickstarter campaign did two-fold ー it helped us fund the project and [we] also wanted to see if people thought our crazy, wild idea was cool,” Larchar said. “Of course we were like, ‘This is amazing!’ But until you start telling people, we weren’t really gonna’ know if it was amazing.”

Soon after the Kickstarter launch, the team got their affirmation.

Larchar said that their feedback has been positive, and many buyers have specifically noted Define the Line’s appeal to younger members of their organization.

Todd spoke to the energy and ambition that Larchar has brought to the inception of Define the Line.

“Although Nikki and I came up with the concept of Define the Line together, she really spearheaded most of that project. It takes a lot of courage to step out of your comfort zone and do something that it different than the norm, especially as a young professional,” Todd said. “Myself and our community have been really impressed with the bravery and courage that she’s had. She’s taken a risk to create something so different.”

The comic deals with harassment as it truly exists in the modern workplace ー one that is increasingly diverse, mobile and undeniably tied to technology. It highlights how harassment can take place over text or target someone’s sexual orientation and how to deal with these interactions at every level of an organization.

Some of the most important feedback that the comic has gotten, Larchar said, has been in the way it approaches scenarios that can’t be easily categorized in the way traditional sexual harassment trainings have always defined.

Also read: How to Avoid The 3 Mistakes L&D Leaders Make When Addressing Workplace Harassment

“We’re really tackling the gray areas,” Larchar said. “What happens if someone asks about another person’s sexual orientation? What happens when after work, it’s decided that we’re gonna’ go to a strip club? How is the HR manager supposed to handle something if I come forward with a complaint?”

For Larchar, Define the Line is just as much of a journey of personal growth as it is professional. It’s been a lesson in finding her own voice as much as it has been helping others find theirs.

“For me Define the Line was really a transformation and helped me to grow,” she said. “I can also support people and say ‘Hey, if you’re like me and it’s awkward, we can still do it and find our voice and help people find theirs as well.’”

Also read: Training Not Enough to Prevent Sexual Harassment

June 20, 2019June 29, 2023

Is Blockchain the Next Frontier in Combating Sexual Harassment?

Vault Platform has developed an app that uses blockchain technology to allow employees to document and report workplace sexual harassment on their smartphones.

“Interesting,” you say,” but what’s blockchain technology?”

Great question. I asked my partner, David Croft, who chairs Meyers Roman’s Blockchain & Cryptocurrency practice group. His answer: “Blockchains are decentralized databases, maintained by a distributed network of computers that rely on network effects and economic incentives to secure the network.”

In other words, blockchains are secure bits of data secured across a decentralized network of digital devices, for which the keys to unlock rely on every other block in the chain. Or, described another way (per Blockgeeks)—

A blockchain is a growing list of records, called blocks, which are linked using cryptography. Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block a timestamp, and transaction data. By design, a blockchain is resistant to modification of the data. It is “an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way. …

A blockchain is, in the simplest of terms, a time-stamped series of immutable record of data that is managed by cluster of computers not owned by any single entity. Each of these blocks of data (i.e. block) are secured and bound to each other using cryptographic principles (i.e. chain).

Which brings us back to Vault Platform’s sexual harassment documentation and reporting app.

The app uses blockchain technology to provide a safe space or a “vault” allowing workers to write reports of harassment and store any evidence, says Neta Meidav, CEO of Vault Platform. The vault itself is private, she says, but at any time workers can use the app to send that information directly to HR. …

If workers decide to report harassment directly to their HR department they have two options, they can elect to individually report or they can choose to go together, Meidav says. By using go together, the platform will search for other complaints about the same individual. If others exist, then the reports will all be sent to HR together. If not, then it will be held until another employee reports that person. …

“The technology will identify if there has been past or present complaints about this person as well,” she says. “Your claim will go to HR with other people who have reported in the past.”

Blockchain has the potential to transform human resources management. It’s being used in hiring and recruiting, paying employees and contractors, tracking time and attendance, and verifying backgrounds (among other uses).

This post is in no means an endorsement of Vault Platform. I’ve never used it and don’t know of any company that has; everything I know about it is from reading its website and the few articles about it I found on the internet. That said, it is illustrative of how blockchain may, in the near future, disrupt HR.

If you are not at least investigating how blockchain technology can help you organization take its HR management to the next level and into the future, you are doing your business a disservice. Thankfully, I know a few attorneys who are at the ready to help.

June 19, 2019June 29, 2023

The 12th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disguised Doctor

Norma Melgoza, a longtime employee of Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, is suing her employer for sex discrimination and equal-pay violations stemming from a denied application for a promotion.

In support of her claim of glass ceiling gender bias, Melgoza points to certain misconduct of the interviewing physician. I’ll let the district court explain.

During an interview with one of Defendant’s doctors, she alleges the doctor wore “a Donald Trump mask” (the “Donald Trump Mask”), an act she described as “humiliating and offensive” to her, insofar as she inferred from this alleged act that the doctor (and, by extension, Defendant) “did not take her or her position seriously and thought nothing of impersonating a man who publicly antagonized Melgoza’s community [Mexican-American] and many members of her gender.”

For its part, the employer seized a Donald Trump mask from the physician’s office during its internal investigation of Melgoza’s allegations (although it claims that the actual look of the mask differs from Melgoza’s description of it).

Suffice it to say, if you wear a Donald Trump mask to conduct a job interview of a Mexican-American, female applicant, you might be the worst employer of 2019.

Also, thanks to this case I think I’ve discovered the trophy to present to this year’s winner.