Consider and compare the following workplace civility policies:
Commitment to My Co-Workers
I will accept responsibility for establishing and maintaining healthy interpersonal relationships with you and every member of this team.
I will talk to you promptly if I am having a problem with you. The only time I will discuss it with another person is when I need advice or help in deciding how to communicate with you appropriately.
I will not complain about another team member and ask you not to as well. If I hear you doing so, I will ask you to talk to that person.
I will be committed to finding solutions to problems rather than complaining about them or blaming someone for them, and ask you to do the same.
-vs-
BloggingÂ
Blogging outside of the hospital must not include ⌠disparaging comments about the hospital.
We conclude that the Commitment to My Co-workers document is a lawful civility policy. ⌠[T]here is a distinction between regulations on what employees can say about their coworkers as compared to what they can say about their employer. ⌠[W]hile protected concerted activity may involve criticism of fellow employees or supervisors, the requirement that such criticism remain civil does not unduly burden the core right to criticize. Instead, it burdens the peripheral Section 7 right of criticizing other employees in a demeaning or inappropriate manner.
Balanced against the minimal impact on Section 7 rights of these types of civility rules, employers have significant interests in maintaining such rules. These interests include the employerâs legal responsibility to maintain a workplace free of unlawful harassment, its substantial interest in preventing violence, and its interest in avoiding unnecessary conflict or a toxic work environment that could interfere with productivity ⌠and other legitimate business goals.
While the latter was unlawful:
A rule prohibiting disparagement of the employer has a significant impact on NLRA rights Concerted criticism of an employerâs employment and compensation practices is central to rights guaranteed by the NLRA. A general rule against disparaging the company, absent limiting context or language, would cause employees to refrain from publicly criticizing employment problems, including on social media. Such criticism is often the seed that becomes protected concerted activity for improving working conditions, the core of Section 7.
The entire memo is worth reading for a lesson on how the NLRB analyzes work rules under Boeing. And, if you haven’t had an employment lawyer review your handbook or other work rules in the past few years, this is as good of a reminder as any that there is no time like the present.
Boss just threatened to fire me and another co-worker because we were discussing a raise we both got- what should I do?
We both got pulled into a group chat over the app our work uses, and the first message reads as follows;
Hey I don’t want to here about your raises with the other crew members we talked about this before, other places have strict rules either termination or reversal of the raise this is not okay, Don’t turn something we tried to do nice for you too into a pain for us.
Which, uh, what the fuck?
I’m pretty fucking sure everything in there is MASSIVELY illegal.
AriesAviator wins the labor law Kewpie doll.
Policies prohibiting pay-discussions among employees, or retaliating against employees who discuss how much they make, are per se illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.
Don’t just take my word for it. Here’s what the NLRB said on this very issue in Boeing Co.:
Rules that the Board ⌠designates as unlawful to maintain because they ⌠prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on NLRA rights is not outweighed by justifications associated with the rule. An example ⌠would be a rule that prohibits employees from discussing wages or benefits with one another.
So, AriesAviator, to answer your (albeit crassly asked) question, your employer’s response is 100 percent illegal, and, if you want to make a big deal out of it, jaunt over to your local NLRB office and file an unfair labor practice charge. It’s a pretty open and shut case.
Employers, if you have such policies in your handbooks, or have made such statements to your employees in the past, stop. It’s as easy of an unfair labor practice into which you can stumble.
National Basketball Association Commissioner Adam Silver made an important comment this week at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in Boston, saying that a lot of players are âunhappyâ and acknowledging the very real impact of mental health problems on people, no matter how much fame or money they have.
As a benefits writer who occasionally covers mental health, I think itâs genuinely positive when a powerful figure makes a straightforward, sympathetic comment about mental health issues.
Still, I donât agree with everything Silver said. According to CBS Sports, Silver said, âWe are living in a time of anxiety. I think it’s a direct result of social media. A lot of players are unhappy.”
I contend that this argument is too simplistic. Iâve seen this argument before in research and reading, this concern that technology or social media is making people more depressed or anxious.
I prefer a more nuanced approach. Yes, social media has become increasingly ubiquitous over recent years and so has this trend of people being more open about mental health problems, but this sounds more like correlation than causation. Thatâs a topic worthy of more research.
Mental illness isnât as simple as X caused Y. Being too focused on social media and technologyâs impacts could blind you from other factors that could influence mental health, like personal or professional problems, going through a traumatic event or something physical like brain chemistry. In the context of the NBA, there are understandably some stressors specific to being a professional athlete.
I also donât believe that mental illnesses are any more or less common than they have been historically. At least I havenât seen or heard any convincing evidence of that. We need to acknowledge the very real fact that because of stigma, this wasnât something that people talked about for a long time.
The lack of public acknowledgement doesnât mean it did not exist. Whenever someone makes the âtechnology/social media causes mental problemsâ argument, I wonder if theyâve ever stopped to consider historical context. I wonder if they truly think depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder and panic attacks just didnât happen before. That sounds naĂŻve to me.
Regardless of my preference for a more nuanced take on the causes of mental health problems, I love seeing that the league commissioner is talking about it. This also led to me read about the NBAâs mental wellness program and the organizationâs decision to hire a director of mental health and wellness.
The details of the mental health program are interesting. This story references the leagueâs old policies to deal with mental health problems, often by team physicians who had no expertise in mental health.
It talks about the NBAâs decision to create a wellness program and the time and considerations that went into it. Basically, this is a comprehensive case study that also brings up some philosophical questions about wellness programs.
It also brings up a noteworthy point about privacy and transparency. The wellness program is run independently of the teams, league and playersâ union. According to the article, Michele Roberts, executive director of the National Basketball Players Association said, âWe donât want players to be discouraged from getting help when they need it because theyâre concerned that it will get back to the team, or it may affect their play, or it may affect their next contract.â Yet, the article continues, âeven that can be debated when it comes to wellness.â
Data privacy and health privacy are topics I care about, which is why itâs intriguing to find debates like this. This story makes a point that when more people are open and transparent about mental health, thereâs less stigma.
Wanting anonymity when youâre seeking mental health treatment helps âcontribute to the continued stigma.â Further, one former player expressed concern that when people want anonymity, people like him are then persecuted for being up front.
I get this to a certain degree, and I understand this personâs idealized version of the world where everyone can be open about everything and thereâs no judgment or consequences. But mostly I prefer to be realistic.
In any organizationâs wellness program, privacy should be a clear choice. Health information is private, and no employee should feel pressured to talk publicly about something they want to keep private. HIPAA exists for a reason. And, yes, HIPAA doesnât apply to many wellness programs, but that doesnât mean that organizations should respect employee health privacy any less.
As employers get increasingly involved in employeesâ physical, mental and financial health, itâs worth a reminder that many people want privacy, and that a respectful employer doesnât pry into peopleâs personal data.
The 7th nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is an employer that (allegedly) permitted a nearly year-long campaign to malign and harass an employee living with ADHD and Tourette’s syndrome.
Melinda Crooke worked as a line worker for Herbruck Poultry Ranch, an egg farm in western Michigan. As noted above, she has ADHD, which causes her to be overtly talkative and sometimes confused, and Tourette’s syndrome, which manifests in head twitches, facial tics, uncontrolled arm movements, and occasional swearing. According to the lawsuit the EEOC filed on her behalf, all of her co-workers knew of her disabilities.
Crooke claimed that as soon as her supervisor learned of her disabilities, her harassment at the hands of said supervisor and some co-workers began. They called her “Mindy Tourette’s,” “Gabby,” “Motormouth,”and “Wandering Wanda.” They mocked her Tourette’s syndrome by biting their tongues and making exaggerated hand movements. And, after she complained to HR, the mockery only worsened. For example, her supervisor sped up the production line to make it harder for her to keep up, and followed her into the bathroom during breaks to berate her for wasting time. When she complained again to HR, she claims she was told there was nothing anyone could do.
As a result, she quit her job and went to the EEOC, which has now filed suit on her behalf. According to EEOC Trial Attorney Dale Price, “An employer cannot condone a work environment where an employee with an impairment is ridiculed because of it. It must step in to stop such behavior.”
Otherwise, you not only might get sued, but you just might end up as one of the nominees for the Worst Employer of 2019.
In a recent meeting with a major client my consultant team and I were faced with an unusual request.
A transgender executive working for the organization had been facing a series of small but cumulatively damaging setbacks in her career after many years of success. Her slow-motion derailment was harming the performance of her team, which was tasked with a high-stakes, high-visibility project. She had transitioned (from male- to female-presenting) two years earlier and she believed the perceived lag in her performance was not about her actual results, but about her now more-visible gender identity. The organization wanted to invest in the executiveâs development and needed help finding her a coach.
It turned out I was the only one in the room who had experience working with transgender clients, but before I could gather more information, one of the leaders jumped in eagerly with a suggestion: âWell, why donât we call up the local chapter of the Human Rights Campaign and see if anyone there can coach her?â Several heads nodded.
My heart sank. These educated, well-intended professionals had just made the same error too many of our clients make â confusing coaching with mentoring.
As a professional coach and former fitness instructor, there are parallels between the two disciplines that can be helpful in making a distinction between coaching and mentoring.
Before the modern fitness movement first began in the U.S., gyms, sports and various forms of dance and exercise already existed. In the late 1970s and early â80s, programs such as Jazzercise emerged, and Richard Simmons and Jane Fonda helped popularize a whole new form of intense, rhythmic exercise done to upbeat music.
In those early years, almost anyone who was charismatic and a good dancer could lead an âaerobicsâ class. However, driven by increasing popularity, the exuberance of innovation soon gave way to widely varying levels of quality among aerobics classes and instructors, some of which seriously injured participants. Over time, the industry developed standards, ethics and certification guidelines so that today, fitness instructors are mostly well trained and accountable, and class participants enjoy both safety and effective guidance in meeting their wellness goals.
Coaching is similar in that the term âcoachingâ existed long before the coaching field, and some aspects of what we today refer to as âcoachingâ have always been performed by skilled therapists, bosses, clergy, healers, elders and even close friends. However, these similarities, as well as the recent explosion of the coaching field, have contributed to both confusion about what coaching is and widely varying degrees of quality among coaches even as the field has adopted certification procedures, a code of ethics and credentialing requirements.
The Elements of Professional Coaching
âProfessional coachingâ is not coaching like we see happening in sports. Itâs not directing. Simply put, coaching is the facilitation of self-discovery in another person. This self-discovery is achieved through powerful and provocative questions, insightful feedback on what the coach is noticing, and a clear plan for action and accountability. Effective coaches are extraordinary listeners, highly creative, extremely agile and masterful at self-management â skills developed over months of training and years of practice.
Coaching is not giving advice, telling someone what to do, or showing someone how to perform a task. These functions are more accurately described as advising, mentoring or even consulting. Mentoring is a form of advising, in which the mentorâs role is to impart what the learner doesnât have â knowledge, wisdom, skills and connections. Coaches can be effective even with minimal experience in their clientâs field or industry, because the client possesses the âselfâ the coach helps them unlock and act from. In mentoring, the mentor has the answers; in coaching, the client has the answers.
Effective advising, mentoring and consulting often have coaching elements to them, but they are not technically coaching. Itâs also true that some coaches incorporate advising or consulting in their work â for example, debriefing the results of an assessment or 360 â but when they do, they arenât necessarily coaching. When I incorporate advising into my coaching, I always ask permission to do so, and verbally indicate when I am stepping in and out of coaching mode.
Being clear about what coaching really is, it is not about nitpicking semantics. When advising is called coaching, or mentoring is conflated with coaching, everyone involved misses out on the unique transformative power of a professional coaching relationship. People think they have experienced coaching, when they have not.
Professional coaches are to coaching what certified fitness instructors are to the fitness world. Here are some of the requirements:
Many professional coaches have completed a certification program, often accredited by the International Coach Federation, which requires up to 125 hours of training taking place over several months or longer. Some certification programs also require an exam, completion of hours observed by a mentor coach, and receiving coaching from a senior level coach. Coaches who complete certification become certified professional coaches or another designation bestowed by their certification program.
Some coaches, certified or not, choose to complete a credential, usually with the International Coach Federation. This requires at least 100 documented hours of coaching experience, passing an exam, and in some cases (depending on the type of credential and selected path), mentor coaching and/or the submission of recorded sessions for evaluation. Credentialed coaches (ACC, PCC or MCC) must complete continuing education to maintain their credential, which must be renewed every three years.
In sum, all credentialed coaches are trained, many credentialed coaches are certified, but not all certified coaches are credentialed. The latter case is similar to that of a social worker that has completed their MSW degree but is not yet licensed as a counselor.
Being clear about the qualifications that professional coaches possess is not about denigrating those who arenât certified or credentialed. Many coaches who are not certified or credentialed are very skilled. But many of them are not. Some of them are not even doing coaching, and they are neither held to a professional code of ethics nor required to meet continuing education requirements.
Our clients trying to support their struggling transgender leader had good intentions, but have a common misunderstanding of what coaching entails. Suggesting that a person from the Human Rights Campaign would be qualified to coach a transgender executive just because theyâre LGBTQ is like saying a person whoâs good at arithmetic is qualified to do your tax returns, or a person with nice hair is qualified to cut yours. Professional coaches have a specialized, often highly developed skill set that should not be devalued or dismissed.
Both coaching and mentoring are critical to developing employees from underrepresented and marginalized identity groups. While we do need insightful, validating facilitators of our self-discovery, we also need competent role models to show us the way.
Some 43 percent of American employees work for companies with 50 or fewer workers.
I raise this statistic because it is almost a guarantee that many of these small businesses operate without a dedicated HR department or HR personnel.
Earlier this month, the EEOC settled a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit it had brought against several IHOP franchises operating in New York and Nevada. The allegations were truly awful, including misbehavior such as unwanted touching of female employees’ buttocks and genitalia, graphic comments about sexual genitalia, invitations to engage in intercourse, and vulgar name calling, perpetrated by both managers and co-workers.
Part of the settlement included a cash payment of $700,000 to the alleged victims. The more interesting part of the Consent Decree requires the companies to create a human resources department (which they were lacking) staffed with professionals knowledgeable about handling and preventing discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date, for at least the duration of the Decree, Defendants shall establish and maintain a Human Resources Department with enough staffing to carry out the terms of this Decree. The Human Resources staff shall be comprised of human resources professionals with demonstrated experience in the area of employment law, properly handing complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and preventing and correcting such conduct.âŚ
The Human Resources Department shall be easily accessible to Defendantsâ employees in person, telephonically, or by email during normal business hours.
That newly created HR department is required to do all of the things you’d expect an HR department to do regarding its EEO responsibilities:
Establishing a record-keeping procedure that provides a centralized system of tracking discrimination, harassment and retaliation complaints.
Enforcing the employers’ policies, procedures, and practices to foster a workplace free of unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, including taking measures to ensure that no retaliation is taken against any employee engaging in protected activity.
Ensuring proper systems are in place to make certain that proper avenues exist for employees to complain about discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.
Receiving and promptly investigating complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from any employee.
Maintaining regular contact with employees who complain of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
Ensuring appropriate corrective and protective measures are implemented in a timely manner after conducting a thorough harassment investigation.
Overseeing the development and implementation of anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training and education.
Your business is never too small for an HR department, and HR should never be an afterthought. In fact, it’s one of the most important positions to fill in any business of any size.
Your people are your most important asset. No matter your product, service, or mission, without employees to make it, provide it, or carry it out, you don’t exist.
Every company needs HR to recruit and hire, to create and monitor policies, to help ensure legal compliance, to implement benefits, and to strategize. Size may vary, but without any dedicated HR professionals, you are telling your employees they don’t matter, which is never the right message to communicate.
And, further, when it leads to harassment complaints being ignored, it could land you at the receiving end of an expensive lawsuit.
Iâm sharing a ride with a colleague heading back to our hotel after work.
As we pull in to the hotel parking lot, the topic of a struggling restaurant there with service issues comes up.
I offer the following: âIf I owned that place, Iâd solve all the service issues by hiring nothing but people with criminal backgrounds who were recently released.â
Some of you may think Iâm enlightened making that statement, others will think Iâm crazy. Itâs neither. Iâve just been influenced by the recent agenda of the Society for Human Resource Management. SHRM recently announced a partnership called âGetting Talent Back to Work,â which includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association and Koch Industries. The singular goal of this initiative is to encourage companies to take a national pledge to hire workers with criminal backgrounds
The average HR pro might think the controversy would be getting past Americaâs long-term tradition of refusing to hire those with criminal records. Instead, there was a small to moderate outcry related to presence of Koch Industries in the initiative. Owners Charles and David Koch â the Koch brothers â are active (some would say notorious) fundraisers and influencers in conservative politics. Â
Research Koch Industries and youâll find environmental issues as well. But youâll also discover an industrial business hurting for employees in a low unemployment/peak economic cycle environment.
Which begs the question: Will those with criminal convictions in their background care about the political leanings of the owners if they get a job at Koch Industries?
I think not. I believe theyâll be thrilled for the chance. But back to the evolving agenda of SHRM.
What should we expect from SHRM related to its agenda and politics? Should we be outraged when SHRM CEO Johnny C. Taylor Jr. shakes the hand of an American president whose tweets spark widespread division? Should we expect that companies with the ownership background of Koch Industries never have the chance to partner with SHRM?
First, you must first understand the reality of SHRM. The DNA of SHRM includes the following components:
⢠SHRM leans conservative as an organization focused on helping companies perform better through progressive talent practices. SHRM serves its membership in this regard, as any company with strong internal HR talent has a better chance of marketplace success. But make no mistake, SHRM is directly aligned with the business community. Go to any SHRM legislative update and youâll hear the pro-business focus. This conservative focus attracts partners with deep roots in the business community. SHRMâs affiliations are easy when the partner is a broad, vanilla association like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Companies like Koch become harder to evaluate for fit.
⢠SHRM is at its best when its initiatives merge business need, policy trends and inclusion.âGetting Talent Back to Workâ is a good example of this. Weâre dealing with the lowest unemployment in decades (business need) and immigration policy trends will continue to put pressure on workforce planning (especially in non-white collar jobs). Any SHRM initiative to relieve this pressure would seem to be a good investment of resources. But the real magic happens when SHRM can create these types of programs with an inclusion element. Rather than teaching HR pros how to recruit existing employees away from competitors, âGetting Talent Back to Workâ attempts to bring new candidates into the tent. Itâs the not the first example of inclusion most of us would list, but itâs a brilliant program when you step back and evaluate the convergence of business need, policy and demographic in need.
⢠SHRM doesnât always move first, but when they move, it matters. SHRMâs a mega-association battleship. With hundreds of thousands of members, youâll find a cross-section of America including comparable percentages of conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheists and more. Like any other association with demographics that rival the United States at large, SHRM is rarely first on any issue that involves societal change. But when SHRM moves, it matters. Hundreds of thousands of members are influenced by various SHRM media properties monthly, meaning SHRM opens minds on any issues linked to the world of HR.
SHRMâs not perfect. But an agenda that challenges HR pros to rethink traditional views that may be limiting in todayâs world matters.
How many different ways can one employer discriminate? How about eight?
The EEOC recently settled a national origin and disability discrimination lawsuit against a staffing agency, brought on behalf of a group of Latino employees working at an Alabama poultry plant.
The eight different acts of discrimination alleged by the workers?
They were harassed, which included ethnic slurs, threats, verbal abuse and other abusive working conditions.
They were paid less than they were promised.
They were placed in more hazardous conditions.
They were denied bathroom and lunch breaks.
They received fewer hours of work than their non-Latino co-workers.
They had exorbitant relocation, housing and transportation fees deducted from their pay.
They were denied medical treatment and other accommodations (such as breaks or time off from work to recuperate) after suffering repetitive motion injuries to their hands, forearms and shoulders.
And, when they complained about all of the above, they were ignored.
According to Marsha L. Rucker, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District Office, “We cannot allow any employer to prey on vulnerable workers by recruiting them and then subjecting them to such gross mistreatment.” Adds Bradley Anderson, the EEOC’s Birmingham district director, “The EEOC has made combating discrimination against vulnerable workers a strategic priority so that employers cannot profit from victimizing them.”
All of the above cost this employer $475,000 to settle the EEOC’s claims.
It also earned this employer its nomination as the Worst Employer of 2019.
Early Friday afternoon, Henry Pratt Co. informed one of its employees, Gary Martin, of his termination.
Shortly thereafter, he opened fire with a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson, killing five of his co-workers and wounding five police officers. Martin himself was the sixth casualty, killed in a shootout with police.
After the news of this tragedy broke, reports surfaced of Martin’s history of violence âs ix prior arrests by the local police department for domestic violence, and a decades-old felony conviction for aggravated assault.
All of which begs the question, should this employer have known that Martin was prone to violence, and, if so, should it have taken added measures in connection with his termination.
A criminal history of violent arrests and offenses is not necessarily a predictor of workplace violence. Still, there are certain warning signs for which an employer can look to help determine whether an employee is at risk for potential violence.
A chronic inability to get along with fellow employees
Mood swings and anger control issues
Expressions of paranoia or persecution. Being a “victim”
A history of problems with past jobs and and/or personal relationships
An inability to get beyond minor setbacks or disputes at work
A fascination with guns, weapons, or violent events
A sudden deterioration in work habits or personal grooming
Signs of stress, depression, or suicidal ideation
A major life problem, such as divorce or legal problems
If one more of these red flags surface, it is recommend that you refer this employee to an employee assistance program, for assessment and treatment.
If you are compelled to fire an employee who you think poses a risk of violence, it is recommended that you take further steps to mitigate against the risk of your termination transforming into a workplace tragedy.
Consider using a neutral manager or outside security consultant to carry out the termination
If there is manager or supervisor who has been the object of threats or anger, that person should not be the person to conduct the termination
Have security nearbyânot in the same office, but close enough to hear signs of a problem and to act
Do not take a break. There are numerous instances of an employee asking for a bathroom break or time to compose him- or herself, and using the break to retrieve weapons
Wait until the end of the workday to terminate, if possible. This protects the dignity of the fired employee and minimizes the number of employees on hand should a situation escalate
Minimize any reasons why the employee would have to revisit the workplace. Mail a check; have uncollected belongings sent to the personâs home via a delivery service
Allow the person as much dignity as possible, but be brief and to the point. Do not get into a back and forth
Emphasize any severance benefits and outsourcing help that may be available. Some organizations decide they will not contest unemployment or offer the option of resigning.
As with most issues in the workplace, the proverbial ounce of prevention really matters. While there exists no foolproof way to protect your workplace against these kinds of tragedies, a few preventative steps can go a long way to putting you in the best place to deter and respond.
Just in time for Valentine’s Day, I bring you the story of a employee rumored to be sleeping with her boss to get a promotion. She wasn’t, but the workplace rumor mill sure thought she was.
Evangeline Parker began working for Reema Consulting Services, Inc., as an entry-level clerk. She received six promotions during her first 15 months of employment, ultimately to the position of Assistant Operations Manager.
Two weeks after her final promotion, Parker learned that “certain male employees were circulating ⌠an unfounded, sexually-explicit rumor about her,” that she had slept with her manager, Demarcus Pickett, to obtain her management promotion. Participation in the rumor mill spread all the way up to the plant’s highest level manager, Larry Moppins, who asked Pickett, “You sure your wife ain’t divorcing you because you’re f–king [Parker]?”
Parker claimed that as the rumors spread, her coworkers, including those she supervised, treated her with “open resentment and disrespect.” It culminated in a staff meeting from which Parker was forcibly excluded, during which the rumor was openly discussed.
When Parker later tried to talk to Moppins about the issue, he blamed her for “bringing the situation to the workplace,” and told her that “he could no longer recommend her for promotions or higher-level tasks because of the rumor,” and that he “would not allow her to advance any further within the company.” A follow-up meeting several days later ended with Moppins screaming at Parker.
Thereafter, Parker and Donte Jennings (the man she accused of starting the rumor) filed harassment complaints against each other. In response, Moppins simultaneously issued Parker two written warnings and fired her.
In Parker v. Reema Consulting Services, the 4th Circuit held that Parker sufficiently pleaded that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment based on sex.
RCSI argued (and the district court concluded) that the rumors could not support a sexual harassment claim because they had nothing to do with Parker’s gender, but instead were about her conduct. The 4th Circuit rejected this argument and reversed the district court:
As alleged, the rumor was that Parker, a female subordinate, had sex with her male superior to obtain promotion, implying that Parker used her womanhood, rather than her merit, to obtain from a man, so seduced, a promotion. She plausibly invokes a deeply rooted perception â one that unfortunately still persists â that generally women, not men, use sex to achieve success.âŚ
In short, because “traditional negative stereotypes regarding the relationship between the advancement of women in the workplace and their sexual behavior stubbornly persist in our society,” and “these stereotypes may cause superiors and coworkers to treat women in the workplace differently from men,” it is plausibly alleged that Parker suffered harassment because she was a woman.
No good ever comes from the workplace rumor mill, especially when the rumors are about an employee sleeping her way to the top. According to one recent poll, 97% of employees report that spreading rumors about a co-worker’s sex life is the most inappropriate office behavior.
What can you do to limit the harm caused by workplace gossip, especially that about an employee’s sex life? Consider the following 5 suggestions.
Implement a “no-gossip” policy. A year ago I would have told that the NLRB would have serious issues with such a policy as a violation of employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity by talking about their terms and conditions of employment. Currently, however, the NLRB concludes that no-gossip policies are perfectly legal under its new Boeing rules on facially neutral handbook policies.
Keep private matters private. If you don’t want employees gossiping about their co-workers’ private lives, then encourage employees to keep their private lives private. Employees can’t gossip about that which they do not know. That said, in the age of social media, when we are all connected with each other 24/7, this goal is increasingly difficult to accomplish.
Set a positive example. The rumors in Parker were bad, but became that much worse when management began participating. If you want your employees to stop gossiping and spreading rumors about each other, set a positive example, and expect all employees to follow suit.
Encourage complaints. Employees need to know that HR and management are receptive to complaints about gossip and rumors. Even if not sex-based, take the complaint, and treat it seriously. This means investigating, and talking to those starting or spreading the rumors to make sure they stop.
Spread positive news. Is an employee doing a good job? Did he or she go above and beyond? Spread that type of news around the work place. The flip-side of negative rumors are positive stories about employees, customers, and culture. Good news stories will help drown out the negative.
And, for goodness sake, do not in any way, shape, or form permit employees to suggest that another slept her way to the top, or discipline the victim when she complains.
Which begs the question: Will those with criminal convictions in their background care about the political leanings of the owners if they get a job at Koch Industries?