Subtle Discrimination
To read this month's cover story on LGBT issues in the workplace, click here.Sometimes discrimination isn't so obvious. This is especially true when it comes ...
April 30, 2008 at 08:00 PM
6 minute read
To read this month's cover story on LGBT issues in the workplace, click here.
Sometimes discrimination isn't so obvious. This is especially true when it comes to sexual orientation-based discrimination. Even the most innocent comment or question could land an employer in hot water if he or she isn't careful.
One of the biggest risk areas for subtle discrimination is job interviews. Let's say an employer is interviewing a male candidate for a position and notices a ring on the individual's ring finger. The employer might strike up a seemingly inconsequential conversation about the candidate's wife. At this point, the candidate may choose to reveal his sexual orientation, which could then put the employer in jeopardy.
“In a situation like that, you have not asked for sexual orientation information; you've begged for it,” says Michael Cohen, partner at WolfBlock in Philadelphia. “In-house counsel have to make sure managers and HR professionals understand they have to be careful with questions they ask during interviews. They should keep questions out of the personal realm as much as possible.”
Michele Beilke, a partner in Reed Smith's Los Angeles office, recalls an incident when a heterosexual manager refused to visit clients in a part of town heavily populated by gays. The employee made snide comments, which can amount to discrimination.
“When something like that happens, you come down on that employee with a sledgehammer and let them know that's no acceptable behavior and that this is an inclusive workplace,” Beilke says.
Beilke adds that punishment for such incidents of discrimination must be relative to the severity of the discriminatory act.
“Physical touching means more action than a gay joke,” she says. “But there are even different levels of offensiveness with respect to jokes. So it is really an individualized analysis, and every complaint must be treated accordingly.”
To read this month's cover story on LGBT issues in the workplace, click here.
Sometimes discrimination isn't so obvious. This is especially true when it comes to sexual orientation-based discrimination. Even the most innocent comment or question could land an employer in hot water if he or she isn't careful.
One of the biggest risk areas for subtle discrimination is job interviews. Let's say an employer is interviewing a male candidate for a position and notices a ring on the individual's ring finger. The employer might strike up a seemingly inconsequential conversation about the candidate's wife. At this point, the candidate may choose to reveal his sexual orientation, which could then put the employer in jeopardy.
“In a situation like that, you have not asked for sexual orientation information; you've begged for it,” says Michael Cohen, partner at
Michele Beilke, a partner in
“When something like that happens, you come down on that employee with a sledgehammer and let them know that's no acceptable behavior and that this is an inclusive workplace,” Beilke says.
Beilke adds that punishment for such incidents of discrimination must be relative to the severity of the discriminatory act.
“Physical touching means more action than a gay joke,” she says. “But there are even different levels of offensiveness with respect to jokes. So it is really an individualized analysis, and every complaint must be treated accordingly.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All2024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
Financial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Considering the Implications of the 2024 Presidential Election for Jurors in White Collar Cases
- 22024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
- 3What We Heard From Litigation Leaders in 2024
- 4Akin and Simpson Create New Practice Groups With Integrated Teams
- 5Thursday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250