Last week, President Trump signed his “Buy American, Hire American“ Executive Order. The EO encourages American businesses to buy American-made products and hire American workers.
Come again? Does that say hire American workers? Doesn’t Title VII prohibit national origin discrimination?
Yes, Title VII still prohibits national origin discrimination. And, no, this Executive Order does nothing to change Title VII’s impact. But the manner in which the White House is promoting this EO is … curiously disturbing.
If you read the fine print—that is, the actual language of the Executive Order—you learn that #HireAmerican isn’t really “Hire American”, but instead it’s “hire any American citizen or anyone else legally authorized to work in the United States under our current immigration laws.”
But that’s not how the White House is promoting this Order. It’s being promoted as #HireAmerican, which sends a certain signal to certain xenophobically and/or racistly inclined Americans, who might use this Executive Order to discriminate on the basis of national origin, or race, or religion. “Trump says Hire American, so I’m not hiring that one with the turban, or hijab, or funny accent.” And that’s the exact type of discriminatory misconduct that Title VII is supposed to protect against.
If President Trump wants stricter borders, and to restrict work visas available to foreign nationals, so be it. It’s his prerogative as the President of the United States. If you don’t like it, your remedy rests at the ballot box. However, the White House needs to be careful with its messaging. #HireAmerican sends the wrong message, and will do a whole lot more harm than good, by offering the ignorant and the uninformed a license to hate and discriminate.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
If you are a private employer, it is 100 percent illegal for you to provide employees comp time in lieu of overtime for hours worked by non-exempt employees over 40 hours in a work week. If a non-exempt employee works overtime, you must pay them overtime, and you violate the FLSA if you provide comp time in its place.
If enacted, the bill would enable employees to earn compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation would otherwise be required. It also:
Caps the amount of comp time an employee may accrue at any given time at 160 hours.
Requires that employers annually pay out any unused comp time.
With 30 days’ notice, permits employers to pay out any unused comp time in excess of 80 hours.
Provided for payment of unused comp time upon termination of employment for any reason.
Prohibits retaliation.
Gives employers the flexibility to schedule requested time off within a reasonable amount of time after it is requests, such that operations are not disrupted.
Critics argue that this bill is a “scam” and “phony”:
Workers may request the time for any purpose they like, including care for a sick child or even baseball opening day. There’s just one hitch: the boss may decide an absence that particular day would “unduly disrupt” business operations and specify an alternative date when the child happens to be well and in school and the World Series has come and gone. Flexibility often is a one-way street. … There are a few other drawbacks. When overtime assignments come around, workers get to choose which option they prefer, pay or comp time. But the boss also gets to make the assignments. Those who need overtime to pay the bills may well be passed over. For them, this bill represents a pay cut.
That argument missed one key piece of the legislation — the decision to choose comp time in lieu of overtime rests solely with an employee.
An employer may provide compensatory time to employees … only if such time is provided in accordance with a [written] agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before the performance of the work … (i) in which the employer has offered and the employee has chosen to receive compensatory time in lieu of monetary overtime compensation; and (ii) entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employees and not as a condition of employment.
In other words, if an employee values overtime over comp time and would rather have extra money instead of extra time off, then the employee chooses overtime. If an employee, like many these days, prefers flexibility and work/life balance, then the employee chooses comp time. What is the harm? Where is the lack of flexibility? Where is the pay cut?
This bill (which expired five years after it is passed, and will be a test balloon on this issue) strikes an important balance for employees and employers on an issue that has become more and more important to the American worker — flexibility and time. No, it does not solve every problem with a lack of work/life balance (see, paid medical leave), but it is a quality step in the right direction that we should all embrace.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
The 6th Circuit is considering whether Title VII’s definition of “sex discrimination.”
EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes alleges that the funeral home fired its funeral director because she is transgender and transitioning from male to female. The Eastern District of Michigan concluded that Title VII does not expressly cover LGBT discrimination, and limited the sex discrimination claim to a sexual stereotyping claim.
The court will hold oral argument later this year. The importance of this case cannot be understated. Circuit courts all over the country are lining up on both sides of this issue. Earlier this month, the 7th Circuit (not renowned for its liberal views) concluded that Title VII’s definition of “sex” expressly covers sexual orientation and gender identity. That decision aligns with the EEOC’s view, but contrasts against holdings of the 11th and 2nd Circuits.
As the circuits take sides on this issue, it becomes more and more likely that a losing party will appeal to the Supreme Court, which will be tempted to resolve this issue.
Stay tuned. The oral argument and ultimate decision in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes is one of the key cases to watch in 2017 and 2018.
How high is the bar for what qualifies as unlawful sexual harassment in the 4th Circuit? Pretty damn high, if you ask me. Consider that in Wilson v. Gaston County [pdf], the Court concluded that the following misconduct did not entitle the plaintiff to a jury trial on her sexual harassment claim:
Wilson contends that Putman began harassing her…, telling her she had a “nice ass,” sending her pictures of his genitals, asking for naked pictures in return, expressing his desire to kiss and have illicit forms of sex with her, and making other unwanted physical contact. This behavior persisted despite Wilson’s repeated protests.
The most serious of these events occurred in December 2011. Wilson was sitting in the passenger seat of an emergency vehicle parked at a county station when Putman reached through the open vehicle door and began to tickle and grope her. When she resisted, Putman pulled her from her seat and pinned her against the side of the vehicle, proceeding to grope her breasts, pelvic area, and genitals until a co-worker approached. Then, in January 2012, Putman walked up behind her and slapped her buttocks so hard that her sunglasses and clipboard went flying. Wilson explains that both encounters left bruising either behind her right knee or on her buttocks, respectively.
This employee, however, did not lose this case because she was subjected to this level of harassment. Instead, she lost because, according to the court, she never complained to anyone about it.
The primary objective of sexual harassment liability is a prophylactic one. Notice is therefore a predicate of employer liability because it provides an opportunity for the employer to correct and prevent sexual harassment, and to do so sooner rather than later. …
As a result, we have repeatedly held that an employee claiming harassment by a coworker bears significant responsibility in notifying the employer. Indeed, an employer cannot be expected to correct harassment unless the employee makes a concerted effort to inform the employer that a problem exists under its reasonable procedures. Particularly in large entities with a great number of workers, employers are not necessarily aware of every interaction between employees and cannot be saddled with the insurmountable task of conforming all employee conduct at all times to the dictates of Title VII, irrespective of their knowledge of such conduct.
This does not mean employers can assume a mentality of see no evil, hear no evil. In fact, an employer may be charged with constructive knowledge of coworker harassment when it fails to provide reasonable procedures for victims to register complaints. By establishing an environment hospitable to reporting, employees are encouraged to come forward, sexual harassment can be prevented sooner rather than later, and employers will not be burdened with liability for conduct of which they were unaware. (internal quotes and citations omitted.)
Thus, this court’s definition of “constructive knowledge” such that an employer cannot claim ignorance of harassment is the failure to provide reasonable procedures for victims to complain. Otherwise, according to this court, an employee cannot win a harassment case because of his or her failure to place the employer on notice of a need to investigate and remedy the offending misconduct. Because this employee admitted that she failed to complain to HR, she lost her claim.
Readers, is it appropriate to ignore workplace harassment just because no one has brought it HR’s attention? I’ll give you two choices — “no” or “no”.
Under no circumstances should you ever bury your corporate head in the sand in the face of workplace harassment. You must not ignore harassment that you know about or should know about. It is not a defense for you to close your eyes and hope that it will all be gone when you open them. Just ask Fox News (which, according to The New York Times, has settled the claims of five women for $13 million) how that strategy has worked out for it.
I believe that Wilson is an anomaly, not gospel. Should you rely on Wilson to ignore harassment that occurs in your workplace, I can guarantee a lawsuit, and I cannot guarantee that your result will be anywhere near as successful as Gaston County, which, in my opinion, dodged a huge bullet.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
I saw in the elevator at work recently that jobless claims are lower than expected, signaling — according to that brief paragraph — signs of strength in the labor market. I wouldn’t know. I’m not looking for a job, and I don’t know anyone who is, which is interesting. Because I know quite a few people who are jobless.
Why? A variety of reasons. Layoffs, bad bosses, health issues, whatever the reason, they should be looking for work. But to a man, their “search,” well, let’s just say it deserves those air quotes.
I’ve asked why, and again, to a man, their responses are some variation on the following: You couldn’t pay me to look for another job, and let these folks treat me any old kind of way. Um, OK. So it’s more important that you be treated well than it is to find a job?
Their response: Basically? Yeah. Out of necessity small, home-based businesses are popping, there’s long-term temping, dedicated freelancing, there are all kinds of hustles out there keeping good workers out of traditional offices.
Of course, when I hear stories like these I ask for details. One lady told me for one job — she’d been looking steadily for over a year— she interviewed with four different people. She thought she was in until that last one. The man interviewing her wouldn’t meet her eye, and he was looking pained. He also kept sighing and rubbing his head.
She said she knew it was over at that point. Weeks went by and she heard nothing. She finally called them and was told some vague variation of “we’ve gone in another direction.”
“Well, thanks for sharing,” I scoffed.
“Mr. Crusoe, I’m concerned about this 20 year gap in your resume.”
She nodded. “Yup. That’s what I thought too.”
Another lady told me she was up for a great job. Her first phone screen went well. The second one went even better. Then she showed up for the in-person interview. She was kept waiting for almost an hour with no explanation or apology, and when a man came out he looked at her with feigned surprise and said, “You’re [fill in first and last name here]?”
“He wasn’t even the person I was there to meet. But I suspect the receptionist told him what I looked like.”
We had a good laugh about it. I shared an eerily similar story of my own that happened years ago.
“Huge waste of time,” I recalled. “Whenever that mess crosses my mind I regret that I even sat through it. What did you do when he asked you were you really you?”
She laughed. “Girl, you’d have been proud. I said, ‘I sure am,’ and I held up my phone. ‘And I just found out I got a fabulous job. Bye!’ I should have won an Oscar. Buzzards. Wasting my time, making me put on my good clothes and spend money traveling to deal with stupid ****. They weren’t getting another minute from me.”
She has since suspended her search altogether and is now happily enrolled in beauty school. She’s been doing hair on the side for years and figured she was doing well, why not make it official? She likes being her own boss, she said. “And I always treat my customers right.”
Both stories are examples of how talented employees are choosing to vote with their feet and take themselves out of the talent pool because companies are not ready or willing to treat them with respect. It doesn’t make sense.
The phrase war for talent is a little dated, but it’s definitely still valid. Companies have tons of unfilled positions, and I know there are a good number of qualified, hardworking people out there who would love to fill them; I’ve worked with the Oscar winner/stylist before, and she’s sharp as a tack, professional and dedicated. It was definitely their loss.
The problem is, the recruiting process is broken. Whether it’s a sign of the times, the result of technology and the rapid pace of business edging out common courtesy and common sense, recruiters aren’t always what they should be.
I’ve heard them described as careless, rude— how would you like to go to an interview in your best clothes and be called by the wrong name or be asked were you there for the housekeeping position?— and completely unprepared. And what’s with the weeks going by without telling people whether or not they got the job? Even a form letter-type email is better than silence. Close the loop already. Don’t just leave people hanging.
Recently my boss sent our intern candidates — interns — who didn’t get the post an email within days of us making the decision. And that’s standard practice for him. So, talent leaders? Y’all may need to ask yourselves, what is our recruiting process/experience really like?
If you have unfilled positions and you’re spending a lot of time and money recruiting and interviewing with no results, something’s not right. Determine:
Are we being careless with people’s time?
Are we making assumptions about candidates who look a certain way?
Do we have a clear idea of what we want a candidate to be able to do?
Are we willing to offer training if a candidate looks promising?
Are our resume review, candidate selection and interview processes user friendly and free of bias?
Are interviewers well trained?
Are candidates being treated with respect? For instance, are we informing people in a timely fashion that they did or did not get the job?
Those are just a few questions to get you started. The actual recruiting process analysis will need to be much more in depth, and correcting any problems will be an even bigger job. But it’s a job worth doing. Further, you need to ask these questions of the right people — the candidates.
The best time to ask is right after the interview when the experience is fresh in their minds. Of course, who’s going to answer honestly when they’re still holding out hope of getting the gig? The next best time would be after they’ve been notified in the negative. Shoot them an email. It’s kind of like an exit interview.
I think companies should send in the job-seeker version of secret shoppers. Send in fake candidates of all shapes, colors and sizes with stunning resumes and see what happens. It might save some serious recruiting costs in the long-run by rooting out systemic bias and other institutionalized missteps. And anytime you sweep out the bad— assuming the company fixes what is broken — you make way for something good.
And good in the recruiting game means talent.
Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
In Saleem v. Corporate Transportation Group (2nd Cir. 4/12/17) [pdf], the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether a company properly classified a group of black-car taxi drivers as independent contractors, or whether it should have classified them as employees. In ruling for the company, the court gifted employers a game plan to use when classifying workers to minimize risk in making the key determination of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.
In so ruling, the court considered three factors to be crucial as to the “economic realities” of the relationship between company and drivers in this case.
1. The drivers had entrepreneurial opportunities available to them.
The fact that Plaintiffs could (and did) work for CTG’s business rivals and transport personal clients while simultaneously maintaining their franchises without consequence suggests, in two respects, that CTG exercised minimal control over Plaintiffs. First, on its face, a company relinquishes control over its workers when it permits them to work for its competitors. Second, when an individual is able to draw income through work for others, he is less economically dependent on his putative employer. … Plaintiffs here possessed considerable independence in maximizing their income through a variety of means. By toggling back and forth between different car companies and personal clients, and by deciding how best to obtain business from CTG’s clients, drivers’ “profits increased” through “the[ir] ‘initiative, judgment[,] or foresight’” — all attributes of the “typical independent contractor.”
2. The drivers were personally financially invested in their work.
Regardless whether they actually purchased a franchise, the record also shows that Plaintiffs invested heavily in their driving businesses — another indication that they were “in business for themselves.” … One Franchisor Defendant estimated expenses for an individual purchasing a franchise as totaling between $68,838 and $89,038.30. Such sums constitute a substantial financial outlay on Plaintiffs’ part, even beyond the purchase or rental of the franchise itself, and in essential facets of Plaintiffs’ business operations: vehicle acquisition, fuel, repair, and maintenance, license, registration, and insurance fees, and tolls, parking, and tickets. CTG did not provide reimbursements for these expenses, never mind for discretionary investment in business cards, advertising, or other ventures designed to attract customers.
3. The drivers maintained a high degree of flexibility in how they performed their work.
The ability to choose how much to work also weighs in favor of independent contractor status. … After purchasing or leasing a franchise and securing a suitable vehicle, Plaintiffs set their own schedules, selecting when, where, and how often to work (if at all). Defendants provided no incentive structure for Plaintiffs to drive at certain times, on particular days, or in specific locations, leaving the decision to work “to the whims [and] choices” of its drivers. Likewise, Defendants required no notice on the part of drivers as to when they intended to work, nor did they make any effort to coordinate drivers’ schedules. … Plaintiffs also exercised considerable discretion in choosing when and where to drive. … Additionally, the record demonstrates that, as a matter of economic reality, Plaintiffs accepted and rejected (despite the penalty of being placed at the end of the queue) varying numbers of job offers, a fact indicative of the discretion and independence associated with independent contractor status.
The court, however, was not without a warning for employers in making this important determination between employee and contractor:
To be clear, we note in conclusion the narrow compass of our decision. Specifically, we do not here determine that it is irrelevant to the FLSA inquiry that the Defendants provided Plaintiffs with a client base, that Defendants charged fees when Plaintiffs utilized Defendants’ referral system, or that Defendants had some involvement, if limited, in rule enforcement among franchisees … In a different case, and with a different record, an entity that exercised similar control over clients, fees, and rules enforcement in ways analogous to the Defendants here might well constitute an employer within the meaning of the FLSA.
In other words, at the end of the day, the key inquiry still remains whether, when examining the totality of the circumstances, the “economic realities” of the relationship dictate that “the workers depend upon someone else’s business for the opportunity to render service or are in business for themselves.” Nevertheless, as the Saleem court makes clear, three of the key factors that you should be examining in making this determination for your workers are entrepreneurial opportunities, personal investment, and flexibility, which clearly help establish the legitimacy of the classification of workers as independent contractors, both in the gig economy and elsewhere.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor, wrote that “[w]herever trade unions are most firmly organized, there are the rights of the people most respected.” But Gompers wasn’t quite right if Tanganeka Phillips’s claims are true; she alleges that one of the largest unions in North America discriminated against her on the basis of race.
When a judicial opinion starts out with a quote such as this, it’s usually not a good sign for the defendant, unless you happen to be the United Auto Workers — the defendant in Phillips v. UAW Int’l (6th Cir. 4/12/17) [pdf], which walked away from some pretty serious allegations of racial harassment.
Tanganeka Phillips, an employee at the MGM Grand Detroit casino and chairperson of UAW Local 7777, claimed that two employees of UAW International, Brian Johnson and Dave Kagels, created a racially hostile work environment toward her. Specifically, over the span of two years, Phillips alleged that she witnessed the following racist misconduct:
Kagels listed three union representatives (all black) by name and said he would fire them all if he could.
Johnson told Phillips “[w]e need to put a black on staff to calm it down, and was [Phillips] interested?”
In addressing Dwight Braxton (another union member) in Phillips’s presence, Johnson said, “Oh, because you’re big and black. You’re her bodyguard, I’m supposed to be afraid of you.”
Johnson once said that the “problem with the union was that there are too many blacks in the union.”
Johnson made frequent racial comments and spoke in a condescending tone when dealing with black union members as compared to white members.
The last straw for Phillips was when she witnessed Johnson separate member grievances into two piles, a “white” pile and a “black” pile, and stated his intention to withdraw those in the “black” pile.
The court declined to address the legal issue of whether Title VII covers hostile environment claims brought against a union by a member. The court noted that Congress wrote Title VII with different language in the relevant employer and union subsections, and only in the employer subsection is there a specific prohibition on discrimination with respect to “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” (the statutory underpinning of hostile environment claims).
Nevertheless, the court refused to reach that issue, concluding that regardless, Phillips’s claim falls legally short of constituting a hostile work environment.
These incidents, if true, are offensive and condemnable. But they are not actionable as a hostile work environment. … [T]he incidents were isolated and not pervasive or severe enough to alter the terms and conditions of Phillips’s employment. … [T]his court has established a relatively high bar for what amounts to actionable discriminatory conduct under a hostile work environment theory. The misconduct alleged here — a handful of offensive comments and an offensive meeting over a two-year period — does not clear that bar.
And … the court is probably right. A few incidents of minor to slightly less minor severity spread over a two-year period is not sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an actionable hostile working environment. However, just because a working environment (or labor union) is not unlawfully hostile does not mean that you should ignore it if it comes to your attention.
Treat all harassment incidents the same (promptly and thoroughly investigate, consider preliminary remedial steps, communicate will all affected parties, and follow through with remedial action to reasonably cure the harassment) and your workplace will be a better place to work.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Lots has been said about how United Airlines mishandled violently dragging a passenger from an overbooked flight. And none of it is good. Yet, make no mistake, how United CEO Oscar Munoz communicated with his company’s employees immediately following the incident did not do anything to make it any better.
What can you and your company learn from this public relations nightmare? What you say to your employees matters, a lot. Your employees are your brand ambassadors. Employees should be your best resource to spread the good word about your company. Moreover, they are usually more than willing to do so. How you communicate with them instructs how they deliver that message.
More importantly, you cannot assume what you tell your employee will remain within the four walls of your company. For better or for worse, we live in a viral society. Everything we write, say, and do is likely to end up on the internet. This story became a story because passengers took out their phones, recorded video and posted it across social web as quickly as they could. Just as quickly, Munoz’s tone deaf and insensitive statement to his employees also went viral. And he made a bad situation that much worse.
What if, however, instead of calling the passenger “disruptive and belligerent” (among other mistakes), Munoz wrote something like the following?
Dear United employees:
By now we’ve all seen the disturbing video of a United customer being forcibly removed from one of our planes in Chicago. While we can imagine the type of situation that could lead to reaction such as this, this was not that situation. Overbooked flights happen all the time, but this is not the way we (or anyone) should handle them. It escalated out of control, and for that I am truly sorry.
This unfortunate incident should have never happened, and I will do everything in my control to ensure that as long as I run this company, it never happens again. We are fully investigating how we allowed this occur, and when that investigation is complete those involved will be retrained, or, if necessary, disciplined.
In addition, I am announcing a company-wide initiative (details to follow) to retrain all United employees on the art of customer-first customer service. Our customers always come first. Without our customers, we have no United.
Should you have any questions, or would like to report (anonymously or otherwise) a customer service failure that you have witnessed, I have set up both a telephone hotline (888-555-5555) and a dedicated email account (complaint@united.com) special for these needs.
Employees, our slogan is, and shall remain, “Fly the friendly skies.” Let’s do everything in our power to live that slogan in everything that we do.
Crisis over, right?
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Bill O’Reilly’s (alleged) lewd comments and inappropriate come-ons may have finally caught up to him and his employer, Fox News. I don’t, however, want to focus my attention on the salacious allegations, which are just that, allegation. Instead, I’d like to focus on Fox News’s response to the allegations, as to why it has so dragged its feet to do anything in response.
Notwithstanding the fact that no current or former Fox News employee ever took advantage of the 21st Century Fox hotline to raise a concern about Bill O’Reilly, even anonymously, we have looked into these matters over the last few months and discussed them with Mr. O’Reilly. While he denies the merits of these claims, Mr. O’Reilly has resolved those he regarded as his personal responsibility. Mr. O’Reilly is fully committed to supporting our efforts to improve the environment for all our employees at Fox News.
Yes, Fox News did ultimately investigate these allegations, but it appears not until way after the fact.
Readers, is it appropriate to ignore workplace harassment just because no one has brought it HR’s attention? I’ll give you two choices — “no” or “no.”
Under no circumstances should you ever bury your corporate head in the sand in the face of workplace harassment. You must not ignore harassment that you know about or should know about. It is not a defense for you to close your eyes and hope that it will all be gone when you open them. Just ask Fox News (which, according to The New York Times, has settled the claims of five women for $13 million) how that strategy has worked out for it.
When one of the little eateries in our food court is completely dark on a Monday morning it’s normally for the wrong reasons.
When it’s an outlet of a chain of popular quick-serve restaurants — and one I occasionally patronize — my mind instinctively goes for the jugular.
“Whoa, I must’ve missed the news; I didn’t know Pret A Manger shut down,” I thought as I passed the Starbucks and neared the restaurant that in my book makes a damn fine tureen of Moroccan lentil soup.
If you’ve ever visited a Pret, you know that its staff is bubbly to the point of “you can’t possibly be in this good of a mood” obnoxiousness, loud, happy and always there with a kind word even if you’re not stopping for a bite or a coffee. Which is likely why it was even more obvious that something was terribly wrong.
On one hand I’m glad to report that Pret A Manger in the food court of 225 N. Michigan Avenue is not permanently closed. On the other, however, a sign in the darkened window near the coffee read:
“Our shop is closed today.
“We are so sorry to let you know that Dante Colloly, a much-loved member and manager of the Pret team, passed away following a motor vehicle accident on Saturday night.
Fast casual restaurant Pret A Manger closed its stores in Chicago after the unexpected death of co-worker Dante Colloly. Photo by Rick Bell
“Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and his many friends.
“The entire Pret team mourns the loss of our wonderful colleague. He will be forever missed.”
Pret A Manger
I walked away stunned — stunned initially about the news of the death of someone who very likely offered me a friendly howdy and rung me up. But as I passed the other chain establishments both large and small — Dunkin’ Donuts, Jaffa Bagels, Potbelly, McDonald’s, Burrito Beach — I wondered if they would do the same if a team member suddenly died. Really, would any company in the entire Illinois Center complex — literally thousands of businesses, ranging from international consulates to FOX 32 to well-heeled law firms to Human Capital Media — shut down for a day if someone died?
The answer is, probably not. And that’s OK. Every business has to evaluate what a death in the workplace family means to the organization — personally, professionally and financially.
Mr. Colloly was 29 when the motorcycle he was driving Saturday afternoon struck a guardrail on South Lake Shore Drive. He was thrown onto the bike path, according to the Chicago Sun-Times and died at a hospital a short time later.
When our co-owner Norm Kamikow died suddenly in the summer of 2014 there were many heavy hearts and tears shed, but the doors remained open as we worked through our grief. I didn’t think it was wrong then, and even after today’s shocker, I still don’t think it was.
We later discovered the store closures extended beyond our food court. My colleague Bravetta Hassell passed by another Pret A Manger during a midday walk Monday and it, too, was closed. We found this Twitter post:
“We regret to inform you that our Chicago shops are closed today to mourn the loss of a dear colleague. We apologize for the inconvenience.”
I can’t begin to calculate what one Pret A Manger location brings in on a Monday in April. But multiply that by the dozen or so in the downtown Chicago area alone and it has to be a sizeable chunk of change.
Also, consider that in roughly 24 hours Pret team leaders came to the conclusion to close not just one store but locations across the city. Dante Colloly died on Saturday afternoon and by early Monday morning a well-thought out, clear, passionate message about a beloved colleague was posted at all its locations. Credit Pret corporate executives for ceding a lot of control to managers on a local level. A gofundme page has been posted for Mr. Colloly, too.
True, Pret has been maligned in the past for manufacturing its air of employee happiness. But it’s clear that in the wake of Mr. Colloly’s death, the British-based chain has developed a deep culture of trust and concern for its workers’ well being.
As people passed the sign during a busy Monday lunch hour, one woman commented to her colleague, “That’s so sad; they are all such nice people there.”
Not an unexpected refrain when you put your people ahead of profits.
Rick Bell is Workforce’s editorial director. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
