Establishing a Culture of Workforce Compliance in Technology Companies
In the current job market, many technology sector employers are seeking to recruit and retain top talent by creating a positive workplace culture. For many employers, this also includes efforts to recruit and hire workers from underrepresented groups such as women, African-Americans, and LGBTQ employees.
June 21, 2017 at 02:42 PM
14 minute read
In the current job market, many technology sector employers are seeking to recruit and retain top talent by creating a positive workplace culture. For many employers, this also includes efforts to recruit and hire workers from underrepresented groups such as women, African-Americans, and LGBTQ employees. While most companies recognize that diversity is one element of a positive workplace environment, many may not have sufficient compliance programs to ensure that underrepresented groups are supported and provided the opportunity to have their issues addressed. To retain and develop a diverse workforce, it is important for employers to make compliance with employment laws important part of the company culture.
A recent study conducted by the Kapor Center for Social Impact reveals that aspects of company culture may be driving away diverse employees from technology jobs. See Allison Scott, Freada Kapor Klein, Uriridiakoghene Onovakpuri, Tech Leavers Study, Kapor Center for Social Impact (April 27, 2017). This is the case even though many technology companies already provide diversity or implicit bias training. In the Tech Leavers Survey study, researchers from the Kapor Center surveyed a representative national sample of over 2000 individuals who had left jobs in technology fields or in the technology industry. Women, African-American, Latino, and Native American employees reported dissatisfaction relating to what they identified as a culture of mistreatment and unfairness in their workplaces. Furthermore, these underrepresented groups were more likely to identify workforce treatment issues as primary motivators for dissatisfaction and the decision to leave their employer. In fact, workplace unfairness was reported to be more significant to employee decisions to seek new employment than competing opportunities in the job market. The Tech Leavers Study can be accessed at http://www.kaporcenter.org/tech-leavers/.
The findings of the Tech Leavers study should be concerning to company leaders who find value in attracting and retaining diversity. In addition to the numerous business reasons to recruit and keep diverse hires, there are important legal reasons as well. Employer policies or practices that are shown to result in a disparate impact to specific demographic groups, even without any specific intent to discriminate, can be evidence of prohibited discrimination. See Guz v. Bechtel National, 24 Cal.4th 317, 354, fn. 20 (2000) (explaining disparate impact discrimination). Similarly, recurring workplace complaints addressing the same conduct or directed at the same perpetrators, can present damaging evidence that a harassing environment is pervasive or that an employer has failed to take preventive measures to protect employees from harassment, as in Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie, 63 Cal. App. 4th 1128 (1998), (employer knew of prior complaints against same perpetrator). Failing to address legal compliance issues can result in costly litigation and, potentially, liability for employment harassment, discrimination, or retaliation.
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 AllWill 9th Circuit Uphold NLRB's New Pro-Union Bargaining Orders Rule?
FTC Rule Banning Noncompetes Set Aside on Nationwide Basis by Federal Court
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Freshfields Name Change Becomes Official
- 2Lawyers on TikTok Seek the Right Mix of Substance and Levity
- 3Chair of Montgomery McCracken Decamps for Morgan Lewis
- 4You Too Can Be a Programmer: Connecting to Legal Platform APIs With Generative AI (Part 2)
- 5Court of Appeals and Appellate Division As Courts of First Instance
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