Earlier this month, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued this press release in which it sought your feedback to improve its internal processes for investigating and conciliating charges of discrimination.
Well, the deadline is today.
Eek! Sorry, I got distracted remastering goat remixes should have reminded you earlier.
Duh, right?
Still, a federal appellate court recently reminded us (here) that, indeed, bad things happen when, every week for several months, a male supervisor tells his female subordinate that her husband is “not taking care of [her] in bed.”
Though not threatening, they were more than merely offensive. For a male to say to a female employee under his supervision that her husband was “not taking care of [her] in bed” is the sort of remark that can readily be found to be a solicitation for sexual relations coupled with a claim of sexual prowess and can just as readily be found to have been perceived as such by the female employee. The weekly repetition of such a remark over several weeks only served to reenforce its offensive meaning and to make sexual intimidation, ridicule, and insult a pervasive part of Desardouin’s workplace, effectively changing the terms and conditions of her employment….The allegations of repeated solicitation of sexual relations in a vulgar and humiliating manner suffice to warrant a trial.
Over the weekend, I read this article from Kara Swisher on AllThingsD.com, in which she reports that Yahoo!, under its new leadership, will implement a no-telecommuting rule, effective June 1.
Ms. Swisher posted a copy of the internal Yahoo! memorandum to its employees, in which the company underscores the “critical” need to be at the office versus working form home where “speed and quality are often compromised.”
Sounds good in theory. But I have a little monkey-wrench.
Have you checked out DriveThruHR yet?
DriveThruHR is the baby of Bryan Wempen and William Tincup, a half-hour radio show on which these two HR leaders, along with a guest, discuss the latest trends, thoughts and sentiment within the industry.
Yesterday, I was on DriveThruHR, Human Resource’s #1 Daily Radio, talking social media and the workplace, Americans with Disabilities Act, hockey, and gettin’ freaky with the mashed potatoes. Yeah, that’s right. Hockey.
No body shots here; just a swift federal court kick to Coyote Ugly’s social-media jewels.
You get the ice. I’ll pour a double and serve up the details after the jump…
Today we have a guest blogger at The Employer Handbook. It’s my colleague, Katharine Hartman. Katharine is an associate in Dilworth Paxson’s Labor & Employment Group, but also asked that I give a little shoutout to our new Test Publishing, Certification and Licensure Group.
So holla!
After the jump is a little cross-over between the two. Hope you like it.
(Want to guest blog at The Employer Handbook? Email me).
Kudos to this blog for the drop in discrimination claims. Yeah, I’m giving this blog credit, and so is my mother — probably.
{Mom couldn’t be reached for comment and, strangely, the EEOC press release touting the new FY12 charge statistics is silent about this blog}
The year-end data shows that retaliation (37,836), race (33,512) and sex discrimination (30,356), which includes allegations of sexual harassment and pregnancy were, respectively, still the most frequently filed charges. However, the total number of claims in FY12 dipped below FY10 levels.
An employer must accommodate the sincerely-held religious beliefs of its employees unless the employer demonstrates that doing so would cause undue hardship for the business.
Undue hardship?!? What the heck is that? And how can you make sure that your managers are prepared to address — let alone spot — these issues when they arise.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Calm down. I’ve got your back, after the jump…
That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post.”
Your new employee at local pizzeria has what we’ll call a “facial deformity.” So, rather than having him work the cash register, or otherwise emerge from the kitchen, you mandate that he work in the back so that no customers will ever see him.
Have you violated the Americans with Disabilities Act?
What makes retaliation the most common discrimination claim in America?
I suspect it’s because other forms of discrimination (e.g., race, gender, disability) are more difficult to prove and don’t always result in an adverse employment action, such as termination of employment. And since most people like to keep their jobs, they’re more reluctant to rock the boat.
Conversely, retaliation always includes adverse action — quite often a firing — and follows what the law terms a “protected activity” (opposition to discrimination or participation in the statutory complaint process). So, you have a situation where an employee suspects discrimination is afoot, complains about it, and then gets fired.
The Employer Handbook Blog