R ELIGION , S EX AND P OLITICS , O H M Y ! H OW T O H ANDLE T OUGH S - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
r eligion s ex and p olitics o h m y
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

R ELIGION , S EX AND P OLITICS , O H M Y ! H OW T O H ANDLE T OUGH S - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

May 22, 2023 113 likes •324 views

R ELIGION , S EX AND P OLITICS , O H M Y ! H OW T O H ANDLE T OUGH S ITUATIONS W HILE E NCOURAGING D IVERSITY AND I NCLUSION November 15, 2017 SHRM Diversity & Inclusion Lunch and Learn W HAT IS W ORKPLACE H ARASSMENT ?N OT J UST S EX

slide-1
SLIDE 1

RELIGION, SEX AND POLITICS, OH MY!

H OW TO H ANDLE TOUGH SITUATIONS W HILE ENCOURAGING DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

November 15, 2017 SHRM Diversity & Inclusion Lunch and Learn

slide-2
SLIDE 2
  • Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on:
  • race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic

information.

  • Harassment becomes unlawful where:
  • enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment.
  • the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would

consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.

  • the conduct alters the condition of employment.
  • What is Unwelcome?
  • Individual did not solicit or invite the conduct
  • Individual regarded the conduct as undesirable

W HAT IS W ORKPLACE H ARASSMENT?—NOT JUST SEX

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

slide-3
SLIDE 3
  • Victims
  • Male or female
  • Different or same protected basis
  • Can be a third party
  • Harasser
  • Male, female, over 40, under 40, same or different race, etc.
  • Supervisor, co-worker or non-employee

W HO IS INVOLVED IN W ORKPLACE H ARASSMENT?

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

slide-4
SLIDE 4
  • Significant change in employment status
  • Tangible job benefits are granted/ denied based on submission/ rejection of

unwelcome conduct.

  • Harasser is a supervisory/ managerial official
  • Employer always liable for tangible employment action harassment.

TANGIBLE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

slide-5
SLIDE 5
  • Does not result in a tangible employment action
  • Unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or
  • Creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment
  • Any one can commit this type of harassment: supervisor, co-worker, non

employee

  • Liability depends on who is involved in the harassment:
  • Manager/ Supervisor
  • Co-worker
  • Third Party

H OSTILE W ORK ENVIRONMENT

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

slide-6
SLIDE 6

H ARASSMENT: COSTS IN THE W ORKPLACE

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

  • Depression & Anxiety
  • Litigation costs
  • Physical Health
  • Customer complaints
  • Absenteeism
  • Turnover
  • Revenge
  • Wasted time
  • Workers Comp Claims
  • Quality of work
  • Cooperation
  • Productivity
  • Loyalty
  • Company reputation
  • Morale
  • Employee engagement
  • Ability to meet goals
  • Bottom line $$
slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • Retaliation: 42,018 (45.9 percent of all charges filed)
  • Race: 32,309 (35.3 percent)
  • Disability: 28,073 (30.7 percent)
  • Sex: 26,934 (29.4 percent)
  • Age: 20,857 (22.8 percent)

TOP 5 EMPLOYMENT CHARGES FILED WITH EEOC IN FY 20 16

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

slide-8
SLIDE 8
  • Harassm ent: 362
  • Sexual Harassment: 52
  • Intim idation: 342
  • Discharge: 280
  • Wages: 138
  • Discipline: 106

TOP 5 EMPLOYMENT CHARGES FILED WITH THRC IN FY 20 16

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • Opposition to discrimination or participation in covered proceedings
  • Adverse action
  • Causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action
  • Opposition to Practice
  • Opposition to practice believed to be unlawful discrimination
  • Informing an employer of believed discrimination (ex. Complaining of

sexual harassment ).

  • Reasonable, good-faith belief that practice violated anti-discrimiantion

laws

  • Manner of opposition is reasonable

ELEMENTS OF RETALIATION CLAIMS

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

slide-10
SLIDE 10
  • Action taken to keep som eone from :
  • Opposing a discriminatory practice
  • Participating in an employment discrimination proceeding
  • If the adverse action serves to deter the filing of complaints
  • f discrimination it harms the public interest and will be

closely scrutinized.

ADVERSE ACTION

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

slide-11
SLIDE 11
  • A bystander who speaks out or participates in intervening would be engaged in a

protected activity and would be covered by the anti-retaliation provisions.

  • If an employer encourages bystanders to be proactive in responding to harassment

should also recognize the risk of retaliation and expressly communicate to employees that bystanders will be protected from retaliation.

RETALIATION

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

slide-12
SLIDE 12
  • Bystander action in the workplace is successful when:
  • Strong leadership demonstrates harassment is not permitted
  • Employer actively promotes equality and respectful working relationships
  • Develop policies and guidelines for bystander action on harassment
  • Provide education and training
  • Create a work environment that encourages reporting of harassment:
  • No harassment permitted policy
  • Effective written complaint procedure that everyone knows about
  • Promptly responding to complaints and taking appropriate action
  • Ensuring retaliation does not occur
  • Monitor and evaluate bystander strategies

W HAT CAN EMPLOYERS DO?

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

slide-13
SLIDE 13

EEOC v . Resource Em p loy m ent Solutions, (N.D. MS, August 26, 20 16)

  • EEOC alleged defendant, a temporary staffing company, failed to place, assign, and/ or refer Charging

Party, a laborer, and a class of other Black and non-Hispanic employees because of their race and national origin; retaliated against Charging Party by not promoting her to team leader and then discharging or failing to assign her because she complained of discrimination. EEOC also alleged defendant failed to preserve records.

  • Case resolved through a consent decree and with a payment of $435,000. Defendant agreed to injunctive

relief enjoining it from discriminating or retaliating against any applicant or employee due to race or national origin and because they engaged in protected activity under Title VII. The injunction applies to defendant’s operations in Memphis and any operations at FedEx Smart Post n Southaven, MS during the 4 year term of the decree.

EEOC RESOLUTIONS

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

slide-14
SLIDE 14

EEOC et a l v . SFI (W .D. Tenn. 20 16)

  • EEOC sued defendant, a fabricator and supplier of steel products, alleging it discharged

three Black employees from their positions (purchasing manager, supply chain specialist and supply chain expeditor) because of race.

  • Case resolved by consent decree enjoining defendant, its managers, supervisory employees,

and agents from discriminating against any employee because of his or her race and from retaliating against any applicant or employee because he or she opposed discrimination during its two year term. Defendant agrees to maintain records of complaints of race discrimination and to provide two reports to the Commission. Defendant paid the form employees $210,000.

EEOC RESOLUTIONS

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

slide-15
SLIDE 15

EEOC et a l. v . Dolla r Genera l (e.d. Tenn 20 16)

  • EEOC sued Defendant under the ADA. EEOC alleged Defendant failed to provide Charging

Party, a lead sales associate, with a reasonable accommodation for her disability, diabetes, and discharged her for consuming juice prior to paying for it to prevent a hypoglycemic attack.

  • Jury Verdict on September 16, 2016
  • Plaintiffs awarded $27,565.44 back pay and $250,000 in damages.
  • Magistrate recommended court award plaintiff’s counsel $445,322.25 in attorney’s fees

and $1,676.95 in litigation expenses.

EEOC RESOLUTIONS

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

slide-16
SLIDE 16

EEOC et a l. v . Cov ena nt Tra nsp ort (E.D. Tenn. 20 16)

  • EEOC sued trucking company after it failed to hire Charging Party as a commercial driver because of his

disability, bladder extrophy. Company offered Charging Party a conditional offer of employment pending a urinalysis drug screen, but withdrew offer when he could not provide urine sample due to his condition.

  • Case resolved for payment of $30,000.
  • Charging party declined instatement.
  • Consent decree requires Defendant to maintain records of any complaints of disability involving an

applicant or employee alleging a failure to hire due to an inability for medical reasons to provide a urine sample.

  • Defendant agreed to post a notice in the workplace for two years regarding the settlement.

EEOC RESOLUTIONS

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Religion Politics Sex

H OT TOPICS

SHRM D&I LUNCH & LEARN NOVEMBER 14, 20 17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

slide-19
SLIDE 19

William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 312 Rosa L. Parks Ave., 23rd Floor Nashville, TN 37243

tn.gov/ hum anrights 800-251-3589

TENNESSEE H UMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

CONTACT

@TNHum anRights