Labor: Beware of election backlash
Last week, employees made their way to the polls by the millions to cast a vote in the 2012 general election.
November 26, 2012 at 06:38 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Last week, employees made their way to the polls by the millions to cast a vote in the 2012 general election. The results are in, but talk of the election and what the next four years will bring is only beginning. You probably have had or heard these conversations at home or with friends, on your commutes to work and also in your workplaces. So, should an employer be concerned about “election talk” in the workplace? When should an employer draw a line in the sand and put the kibosh on such talk? And, how can an employer best protect itself from related legal exposure?
Election talk in the workplace
Some election-related talk is bound to take place among employee ranks. For management, the challenge is twofold:
- Be aware of what is said
- React promptly and appropriately when employee talk crosses the line into problematic territory
While election talk may be civil and innocuous, given the hot-button political issues this election season, it is easy to see such talk spiraling into commentary that may be perceived as inappropriate, discriminatory and/or harassing based on protected categories, such as race, religion, gender and/or sexual orientation.
Situations might get particularly hairy when supervisors or managers get involved. As an example, suppose a supervisor, male or female, has a well-intentioned, seemingly innocent discussion with a female subordinate about the election, in which they disagree on the former candidates' differing views on abortion and contraception. Several months later, this subordinate receives a lower review then in past performance periods. The supervisor says it's due to the performance, but the employee thinks, especially in light of the supervisor's election-related comments, that the supervisor may harbor a discriminatory animus against her because of her gender. It is all too easy to see a discrimination charge arise from this, and related, scenarios.
When to put the kibosh on it
Employers walk a fine line when it comes to election talk in the workplace. While it is likely unrealistic—and inappropriate—to attempt to prohibit or prevent all such talk, management should be trained to recognize and respond promptly and appropriately to questionable comments or encounters. The worst response to a questionable exchange is to ignore it and hope that it never resurfaces. It may well come back to haunt you. These types of issues are best addressed head-on, through appropriate investigations and, where needed, corrective action in line with the employer's applicable policies.
Your policies are your best protection
Well-written, consistently enforced anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies are key in helping employers minimize exposure from any election-related backlash in the workplace. Such policies should state the employer's commitment to prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on the categories protected by applicable federal, state and local laws; incorporate clear, legally compliant reporting procedures; include appropriate anti-retaliation language and include disciplinary measures for any violations. Of course, the best written policy is worth little to nothing, unless consistently enforced by trained management. With a solid foundation built from strong policies and smart practices, and knowledge of potential discrimination-related issues, an employer should be well-prepared to evaluate and formulate the right response strategy for any elected-related backlash in the workplace.
Last week, employees made their way to the polls by the millions to cast a vote in the 2012 general election. The results are in, but talk of the election and what the next four years will bring is only beginning. You probably have had or heard these conversations at home or with friends, on your commutes to work and also in your workplaces. So, should an employer be concerned about “election talk” in the workplace? When should an employer draw a line in the sand and put the kibosh on such talk? And, how can an employer best protect itself from related legal exposure?
Election talk in the workplace
Some election-related talk is bound to take place among employee ranks. For management, the challenge is twofold:
- Be aware of what is said
- React promptly and appropriately when employee talk crosses the line into problematic territory
While election talk may be civil and innocuous, given the hot-button political issues this election season, it is easy to see such talk spiraling into commentary that may be perceived as inappropriate, discriminatory and/or harassing based on protected categories, such as race, religion, gender and/or sexual orientation.
Situations might get particularly hairy when supervisors or managers get involved. As an example, suppose a supervisor, male or female, has a well-intentioned, seemingly innocent discussion with a female subordinate about the election, in which they disagree on the former candidates' differing views on abortion and contraception. Several months later, this subordinate receives a lower review then in past performance periods. The supervisor says it's due to the performance, but the employee thinks, especially in light of the supervisor's election-related comments, that the supervisor may harbor a discriminatory animus against her because of her gender. It is all too easy to see a discrimination charge arise from this, and related, scenarios.
When to put the kibosh on it
Employers walk a fine line when it comes to election talk in the workplace. While it is likely unrealistic—and inappropriate—to attempt to prohibit or prevent all such talk, management should be trained to recognize and respond promptly and appropriately to questionable comments or encounters. The worst response to a questionable exchange is to ignore it and hope that it never resurfaces. It may well come back to haunt you. These types of issues are best addressed head-on, through appropriate investigations and, where needed, corrective action in line with the employer's applicable policies.
Your policies are your best protection
Well-written, consistently enforced anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies are key in helping employers minimize exposure from any election-related backlash in the workplace. Such policies should state the employer's commitment to prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on the categories protected by applicable federal, state and local laws; incorporate clear, legally compliant reporting procedures; include appropriate anti-retaliation language and include disciplinary measures for any violations. Of course, the best written policy is worth little to nothing, unless consistently enforced by trained management. With a solid foundation built from strong policies and smart practices, and knowledge of potential discrimination-related issues, an employer should be well-prepared to evaluate and formulate the right response strategy for any elected-related backlash in the workplace.
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 AllExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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