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
Amanda Farahany (left) and Todd Stanton. (Courtesy photos)
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
© 2025 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 All![Securing a Good Result at Mediation Securing a Good Result at Mediation](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/6c/6b/407df3a940b3a96fc71da89d99b6/klevens-clair-767x633.jpg)
![CFPB Proposes Rule to Regulate Data Brokers Selling Sensitive Information CFPB Proposes Rule to Regulate Data Brokers Selling Sensitive Information](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/80/00/7ffed20649f6b2700a45ecfdd0f4/white-koskey-mcmahan-767x633.jpg)
CFPB Proposes Rule to Regulate Data Brokers Selling Sensitive Information
5 minute read![What Lawyers Might Not Know About Taking Cases to Trial What Lawyers Might Not Know About Taking Cases to Trial](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/dailyreportonline/contrib/content/uploads/sites/404/2024/02/Klevens-Clair-767x633.jpg)
Trending Stories
- 1Carol-Lisa Phillips to Rise to Broward Chief Judge as Jack Tuter Weighs Next Move
- 2Data Breaches in UK Legal Sector Surge, According to ICO Data
- 3Georgia Law Schools Seeing 24% More Applicants This Year
- 4After Shutting USAID, Trump Eyes Department of Education, CFPB
- 5‘Keep Men Out’: Female Swimmers Sue Ivy Leagues Over Lia Thomas’ Sweep
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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