Benevolent Discrimination Is Still Discrimination
These are delicate topics. No matter how well-meaning or planned, a statement or professed policy is not likely to satisfy all constituents and could actually make an already touchy situation worse.
July 10, 2020 at 11:34 AM
5 minute read
National and local headlines about protests, social injustice and police reform have created a divide in our communities. Statements from large corporations, with massive social media budgets, can be seen as pandering or polarizing. Other employers want to make a statement or take action but are concerned about potential employee and public ramifications. Employees want their employers to do something but can't necessarily agree on what should be done.
These are delicate topics. No matter how well-meaning or planned, a statement or professed policy is not likely to satisfy all constituents and could actually make an already touchy situation worse. Before you take a stand, make a statement or encourage employee action, think about potential ramifications. Even well-intentioned moves can still break discrimination laws. Here are some points to consider, and issues to avoid, as an employer or employee in these challenging times.
Support diversity, but don't force the conversation.
Implementing diversity training focused on helping employees work together more effectively and foster a dialog among curious colleagues is a solid start. Resources to help facilitate these discussions are widely available, and feedback from such programs is more positive than negative.
But a well-intentioned plan can be taken too far, such as an employer asking its employees to sign a pledge and commit to have conversations about social issues, or directing employees to meet with a person of another race to specifically discuss racism.
We'll suggest that the employer's efforts appear unbiased and progressive, but they cross the line in the latter instances. Depending on how the directives are enforced, they may actually violate anti-discrimination law. Encouraging employees to be mindful of racism is fair game, but requiring specific action based on race is problematic.
Employers can still take action, but focus on things you can control.
Silence can indeed be construed as complicity. You can't ignore what's going on, but you should address things over which you have some control. As an employer, one effective strategy is to eliminate color from the message and the conversation. Discuss equality, the ultimate goal of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. If you're considering an internal or external statement, stick to what you can control—your company will continue to comply with legal and moral obligations. If you go beyond that, you may be inviting trouble in today's highly polarized society.
You have no legal obligation to start an internal conversation (or any conversation), but many employers feel they have a moral obligation to do so. Again, be aware of the potential benefits and hazards before starting the dialogue. Keep the conversation uplifting and not too specific, while abiding by employment laws. Talk to employees about what the company and its leaders are doing in these times to maintain a positive work environment and remember that actions speak louder than words. It's fine to say "we believe in equality and will not tolerate discrimination." It's another to demonstrate the commitment through equitable employment practices and a welcoming work environment.
Look for ways to rally the company and employees around positive activities and causes. Match contributions to predetermined charities that support employer and employee beliefs. Host activities that promote teamwork and team-building. Participate in community activities that promote well-being in underserved communities without a polarizing effect. (Shameless plug: The Boys & Girls Clubs of Metro Atlanta do great work and are always appreciative of your support.)
Understand the employee's and public's perspective.
It's critical to maintain an open dialog with employees, but that obligation doesn't extend to the general community. An employee may ask why you're not supporting Black Lives Matter, a Police Benevolent Association or another cause. When you make a donation in today's climate, the perception will be that you're making a political statement. Help employees understand that the absence of specific support for a particular organization doesn't mean that you don't care about current cultural issues. You can still be 100% against racism and not contribute to BLM, or pro-police and not contribute to a PBA. Just be prepared to face consequences from employees as well as customers whether you're passive or active–they have a right to support or not support you, too.
Employees, of course, can contribute to their own causes and political organizations. Consider offering to match employees' contributions. Encourage them to choose peaceful (and obviously legal) options that promote unity and equality. If your employees feel discriminated against in the workplace, help them understand it is their right and responsibility to report it immediately, and then it's the company's obligation to listen and react accordingly.
It's impossible to keep the topic of social injustice out of the office today. If you want to make a statement or implement a new policy or program, consult your attorney and consider all ramifications before moving forward.
Amanda Farahany of Barrett & Farahany represents individuals in employment cases and other employment hardships.
Todd Stanton of Stanton Law advises small and medium-sized employers on employment law issues.
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 AllIn RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
Second Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Commentary: James Madicon, Meet Matt Gaetz
- 2The Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
- 3Leopard Solutions Launches AI Navigator, a Gen AI Search, Data Extraction Tool
- 4Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
- 5Special Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
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