By Whitney Jones
Religion News Service
WASHINGTON (RNS) AutoZone harassed a Sikh employee for wearing a turban and eventually fired him, according to a lawsuit announced Tuesday (Sept. 28) by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission.
The suit said employee Frank Mahoney-Burroughs was treated like any other employee at the store in Everett, Mass., until he converted to Sikhism.
"For years, our client was a model employee," Sandeep Kaur, a staff attorney for the Sikh Coalition said in a statement. "Things changed as soon as he converted to Sikhism and started wearing a turban. Then, AutoZone managers called him a terrorist, told him that he was offending customers and terminated him."
When customers made terrorist jokes or called Mahoney-Burroughs "Bin Laden," none of his co-workers stepped up and intervened, the EEOC claims.
"I spent more time with AutoZone staff than with my own family and friends," said Mahoney-Burroughs. "It was very painful to be humiliated and insulted by them. They made me feel as though I had no right to practice my faith."
In addition to name-calling at the auto parts store, he was not permitted to wear a turban or the kara, a religious bracelet, both of which are articles of faith for Sikhs.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Discrimination in Any Form is Wrong: Face the Truth Week Sponsored by Asian American Justice Group
From: Asian American Justice Center [mailto:lcampbell@advancingequality.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:03 AM
To: Schrader, Crystal [ICRC]
Subject: ERPA Action Alert for week of action
It is time to tell your member of congress that discrimination in any form is wrong. As part of the "Face the Truth" week of action, community members are raising their voices to say that not only are racial, religious and ethnic profiling inappropriate, but profiling is also bad policy and bad policing.
On Sept. 30th Rights Working Group is bringing your voices to Washington, D.C. with the release of "FACES OF RACIAL PROFILING: A Report from Communities Across America." On the one-year anniversary of the campaign, we are going back to Congress to echo the testimony from the field hearings on the degrading and humiliating effects of racial profiling. Together we can pass this legislation.
Let your congressional representative know that you want them to act now, and to cosponsor the End Racial Profiling Act of 2010.
Problem
Racial profiling affects people wherever they go-their homes and cars, the sidewalk, the airport, work, church and at the border.
Racial profiling is ineffective. Multiple studies have shown that when police focus on race they pay less attention to criminal behavior, reducing the "hit rate" in detecting contraband or uncovering crimes. Racial profiling alienates victims from their communities and causes them to lose trust and confidence in the people and institutions sworn to protect us. They are less likely to cooperate with criminal investigations or seek police protection when needed. This makes all of us less safe.
Solution
The End Racial Profiling Act was first introduced 2001 with strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately Sept. 11 slowed the bill's momentum. In the nine years since, the practice of racial profiling expanded and continues to alienate and plague our communities. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2010 was re-introduced with stronger protections July 16 by Reps. John Conyers and Jerrold Nadler as HR 5748.
E-mail your congressional members to cosponsor the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA). If passed, ERPA would:
--prohibit the use of profiling based on race, religion, ethnicity or national origin by any federal, state, local or Indian tribal law enforcement agency
give individuals recourse if they have been unfairly targeted by such practices
institute programs to eliminate racial profiling that would require training for law enforcement agents, data collection, and procedures for responding to complaints
--permit the U.S. attorney general to withhold grants from law enforcement agencies not complying with the law and allow him to provide grants to agencies that are attempting to develop and implement best practices to eliminate racial profiling
--mandate that the attorney general submit periodic reports to Congress on any discriminatory policing practices to ensure that the intent of the bill is being met
Existing state laws and federal law enforcement guidance provide inconsistent and insufficient solutions to resolve this pervasive, national problem. In many cases, poor state, local and federal policies and guidance encourage or even condone biased policing. The recent passage of SB 1070 in Arizona makes the need for a comprehensive, national commitment to eliminating racial profiling all the more pressing.
E-mail your congress representative today to co-sponsor ERPA (HR 5748).
For more information about the campaign to Face the Truth to Stop Racial Profiling visit www.rightsworkinggroup.org or e-mail pbenjamin@rightsworkinggroup.org.
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:03 AM
To: Schrader, Crystal [ICRC]
Subject: ERPA Action Alert for week of action
It is time to tell your member of congress that discrimination in any form is wrong. As part of the "Face the Truth" week of action, community members are raising their voices to say that not only are racial, religious and ethnic profiling inappropriate, but profiling is also bad policy and bad policing.
On Sept. 30th Rights Working Group is bringing your voices to Washington, D.C. with the release of "FACES OF RACIAL PROFILING: A Report from Communities Across America." On the one-year anniversary of the campaign, we are going back to Congress to echo the testimony from the field hearings on the degrading and humiliating effects of racial profiling. Together we can pass this legislation.
Let your congressional representative know that you want them to act now, and to cosponsor the End Racial Profiling Act of 2010.
Problem
Racial profiling affects people wherever they go-their homes and cars, the sidewalk, the airport, work, church and at the border.
Racial profiling is ineffective. Multiple studies have shown that when police focus on race they pay less attention to criminal behavior, reducing the "hit rate" in detecting contraband or uncovering crimes. Racial profiling alienates victims from their communities and causes them to lose trust and confidence in the people and institutions sworn to protect us. They are less likely to cooperate with criminal investigations or seek police protection when needed. This makes all of us less safe.
Solution
The End Racial Profiling Act was first introduced 2001 with strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately Sept. 11 slowed the bill's momentum. In the nine years since, the practice of racial profiling expanded and continues to alienate and plague our communities. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2010 was re-introduced with stronger protections July 16 by Reps. John Conyers and Jerrold Nadler as HR 5748.
E-mail your congressional members to cosponsor the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA). If passed, ERPA would:
--prohibit the use of profiling based on race, religion, ethnicity or national origin by any federal, state, local or Indian tribal law enforcement agency
give individuals recourse if they have been unfairly targeted by such practices
institute programs to eliminate racial profiling that would require training for law enforcement agents, data collection, and procedures for responding to complaints
--permit the U.S. attorney general to withhold grants from law enforcement agencies not complying with the law and allow him to provide grants to agencies that are attempting to develop and implement best practices to eliminate racial profiling
--mandate that the attorney general submit periodic reports to Congress on any discriminatory policing practices to ensure that the intent of the bill is being met
Existing state laws and federal law enforcement guidance provide inconsistent and insufficient solutions to resolve this pervasive, national problem. In many cases, poor state, local and federal policies and guidance encourage or even condone biased policing. The recent passage of SB 1070 in Arizona makes the need for a comprehensive, national commitment to eliminating racial profiling all the more pressing.
E-mail your congress representative today to co-sponsor ERPA (HR 5748).
For more information about the campaign to Face the Truth to Stop Racial Profiling visit www.rightsworkinggroup.org or e-mail pbenjamin@rightsworkinggroup.org.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Diversity Restructured at the University of Wisconsin; Widens Scope
Finally -- a universitythat understands the need to restructure diversity programming:
The University of Wisconsin's Vice Provost for Diversity and Climate Damon Williams held a press conference Monday to discuss the recent reorganization of campus diversity programs at Thursday's Campus Diversity Forum.
The Daily Cardinal Continues this Story --
The University of Wisconsin's Vice Provost for Diversity and Climate Damon Williams held a press conference Monday to discuss the recent reorganization of campus diversity programs at Thursday's Campus Diversity Forum.
Williams initiated a major reorganization effort within the university's Diversity and Climate division, bringing five campus diversity programs-First Wave, PEOPLE, CeO, POSSE and the Office of Equity and Diversity-under his jurisdiction as vice provost.
"I felt like we would benefit from a greater level connectivity and cohesiveness," Williams said about the reorganization.
According to Williams, restructuring was just a first step.
The Daily Cardinal Continues this Story --
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Take pride in diversity, President Obama tells students in Metro area, across U.S.
What a beautiful message President Obama gave to school children today. In his second annual back-to-school speech, President Obama urged students to dream big, take responsibility and embrace diversity.
Interesting there wasn't a big fight over whether he had the right to talk to our children. That was so embarrassing last year..
"If you take away one thing from my speech, I want you to take away the notion that life is precious, and part of what makes it so wonderful is its diversity, that all of us are different," Obama said. "And we shouldn't be embarrassed by the things that make us different. We should be proud of them." (President Barack Obama to Detroit school children)
Click HERE to read more about his talk.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100915/SCHOOLS/9150351/1022/Take-pride-in-diversity--Obama-tells-students-in-Metro-area--across-U.S.#ixzz0zfLJyW1G
Interesting there wasn't a big fight over whether he had the right to talk to our children. That was so embarrassing last year..
"If you take away one thing from my speech, I want you to take away the notion that life is precious, and part of what makes it so wonderful is its diversity, that all of us are different," Obama said. "And we shouldn't be embarrassed by the things that make us different. We should be proud of them." (President Barack Obama to Detroit school children)
Click HERE to read more about his talk.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100915/SCHOOLS/9150351/1022/Take-pride-in-diversity--Obama-tells-students-in-Metro-area--across-U.S.#ixzz0zfLJyW1G
Peace On Earth -- It Can Happen, Says Virginia Woman (The Queen of the Internet)
Establishing Peace on Earth by 2027 is the brainchild of Deborah J. Boyd, a futurist and an author who dreams of having Peace on Earth. Her Peace Project online is kind of like Wikipedia. She will tell you it will take 2 BILLION people to make peace happen.
I recently spent several hours with Deborah on Skype and she is a delight. I visited her blog and it shows posts from people around the world talking about their ideas and giving advice to to others. You can contact her at http://peace27.ning.com/.
Deborah wants to hear from ALL KINDS of people who are interested in peace and she pledges to help them with their projects on the Internet. She calls herself the Queen of the Internet and she obviously knows much about using social networks to help others reach their goals.
"Do what you do well and do it your best. Don't hurt anyone and you become a positive peace person," Deborah says.
So pay her a visit and share your ideas. Ask her for help and she will help. She promises. She certainly helped me.
I recently spent several hours with Deborah on Skype and she is a delight. I visited her blog and it shows posts from people around the world talking about their ideas and giving advice to to others. You can contact her at http://peace27.ning.com/.
Deborah wants to hear from ALL KINDS of people who are interested in peace and she pledges to help them with their projects on the Internet. She calls herself the Queen of the Internet and she obviously knows much about using social networks to help others reach their goals.
"Do what you do well and do it your best. Don't hurt anyone and you become a positive peace person," Deborah says.
So pay her a visit and share your ideas. Ask her for help and she will help. She promises. She certainly helped me.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
National Hispanic Heritage Month Set For September 15 to October 15
(Left, Spanish painting from 17th Century)
Each year, Americans observe National Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15 to October 15, by celebrating the histories, cultures and contributions of American citizens whose ancestors came from Spain, Mexico, the Caribbean and Central and South America.
The observation started in 1968 as Hispanic Heritage Week under President Lyndon Johnson and was expanded by President Ronald Reagan in 1988 to cover a 30-day period starting on September 15 and ending on October 15. It was enacted into law on August 17, 1988, on the approval of Public Law 100-402.
The day of September 15 is significant because it is the anniversary of independence for Latin American countries Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. In addition, Mexico and Chile celebrate their independence days on September 16 and September18, respectively. Also, Columbus Day or Día de la Raza, which is October 12, falls within this 30 day period.
About This Year's Theme:
On April 18, 2009, the membership of the National Council of Hispanic Employment Program Managers (HEPM) voted on the top five themes selected during the national theme voting period from March 19 to April 3. The winning theme was submitted by Jorge Ponce, Director of the Policy and Evaluation Division at the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Commerce in Washington, DC. The National Council extends its congratulations and sincere thanks to Mr. Ponce for his participation and contribution of this year's winning theme.
This information comes from the Library of Congress and the National Endowment for the Humanities, National Gallery of Art, National Park Service, Smithsonian Institution, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.
Visit the website at http://www.hispanicheritagemonth.gov/about/ for details including calendars of events, videos, stories, etc.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Managing Diversity Means Listening to All Employees; Use Them Or Lose Them!
The XYZ Company is not living up to its promises. The thought comes to junior executive Greg J. as he walks back to his office following the second hostile encounter with his boss in two days. "And today is only Wednesday," he tells himself and shakes his head. When he took this job after graduating from business school six months ago, Greg believed he was going to work for a progressive company, one that knew how to manage diversity − not a traditional company "stuck back in the 50s.”
Greg and fellow students quickly adopted the ideas of R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr., one of America’s leading spokespersons on managing diversity and president of The American Institute for Managing Diversity, which Thomas founded in 1983 at Morehouse College.
Greg liked Thomas’s description of an awakening taking place regarding management in this country’s marketplace as the population moves to increased diversity. Managing diversity is an idea whose time has come as organizations and businesses are increasingly recognizing that a diverse work force is not more trouble for managers, but represents their greatest potential strength − when properly managed, he learned from Thomas.
“This awakening must have happened while I was over in Iraq,” Greg mused one day while going over class notes: “The manager who best understands it takes a diverse work force at all levels of the company, including senior management, best serves the organization,” his professor had lectured.
Greg and his classmates learned how the U.S. labor force “now and for the foreseeable future” will be largely composed of women, minorities, and immigrants. This group will constitute about 85 percent of the new entrants in the work force, according to a landmark study by the Hudson Institute.
They read in their professor's course syllabus that “Companies now realize they must attract, retain, and promote this full spectrum of people just to keep the business running. So great is their need that advice on the management of diversity has suddenly become a growth industry,” (borrowing a quote from Dr. Thomas’s classic book, “Beyond Race and Gender.”)
His business school even took heed to Thomas’s message, and its students represented a dramatic change, moving from mostly traditional young white males to the mid-sixties woman sitting next to Greg (who appeared even younger than the Laotian man sitting at the front of the classroom and still perfecting his English). Greg was a returning, disabled veteran, retraining from the field of education. This multicultural classroom with new ideas coming from so many unique perspectives had inspired and challenged the entire group of students, as well as the professor.
But now, back at XYZ, Greg fully realized how this company’s attempt to force today’s reality into yesterday’s management patterns was seriously jeopardizing the viability of the entire enterprise.
Just this morning, Greg attempted to share ideas about a problem he observed with marketing a new product. “Maybe we should consider finding a new marketing firm, one that understood the Latino culture, since this product were be a perfect fit for Hispanic Americans newly immigrated to the United States,” he suggested. Greg knew quite a lot about this market, after graduating from Spanish language classes through the Army while a Reserve soldier, and studying cultural diversity, multiculturalism and the growing Latino population in the U.S. From this experience, he knew the XYZ product would be a shoe-in for working-class Latinos.
But Greg’s senior XYZ executive boss, even before Greg could finish his last sentence, quickly interjected he didn’t have time to hear such ideas, and that Greg was “stepping out of bounds” with this suggestion. Greg was hired as an accountant, afterall, and marketing was “not his problem,” he reminded the new hire.
Managing diversity, as a way of thinking, is new and very different from traditional business perspective. While the traditional focus has been on individual and interpersonal aspects alone, what is new is seeing diversity as an issue for the entire organization, even involving the very way organizations are structured.
The way organizations are managed and the way managers do their jobs is critical to diversity management. It is grounded “in a very special definition of ‘managing’; creating an environment that allows the people being managed to reach their full potential. At best, it means getting from employees not only everything you have a right to expect, but everything they have to offer,” Thomas writes.
Greg, a white male from the traditional “dominant culture,” had much to offer XYZ, coming from his unique knowledge gained from world travel and multicultural studies. But after this final incident, Greg knew he would never fill his true potential by staying with a company that had no time for his ideas.
“Their loss, my gain...” he sighed and began packing his personal belongings.
-----------
By Susa Klopfer, M.B.A.
Diversity consultant, speaker and author
An excerpt from "Profit From Diversity: Getting Along With Others."
CreateSpace Publish Date: November 15, 2010 (National Education Week)
Greg and fellow students quickly adopted the ideas of R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr., one of America’s leading spokespersons on managing diversity and president of The American Institute for Managing Diversity, which Thomas founded in 1983 at Morehouse College.
Greg liked Thomas’s description of an awakening taking place regarding management in this country’s marketplace as the population moves to increased diversity. Managing diversity is an idea whose time has come as organizations and businesses are increasingly recognizing that a diverse work force is not more trouble for managers, but represents their greatest potential strength − when properly managed, he learned from Thomas.
“This awakening must have happened while I was over in Iraq,” Greg mused one day while going over class notes: “The manager who best understands it takes a diverse work force at all levels of the company, including senior management, best serves the organization,” his professor had lectured.
Greg and his classmates learned how the U.S. labor force “now and for the foreseeable future” will be largely composed of women, minorities, and immigrants. This group will constitute about 85 percent of the new entrants in the work force, according to a landmark study by the Hudson Institute.
They read in their professor's course syllabus that “Companies now realize they must attract, retain, and promote this full spectrum of people just to keep the business running. So great is their need that advice on the management of diversity has suddenly become a growth industry,” (borrowing a quote from Dr. Thomas’s classic book, “Beyond Race and Gender.”)
His business school even took heed to Thomas’s message, and its students represented a dramatic change, moving from mostly traditional young white males to the mid-sixties woman sitting next to Greg (who appeared even younger than the Laotian man sitting at the front of the classroom and still perfecting his English). Greg was a returning, disabled veteran, retraining from the field of education. This multicultural classroom with new ideas coming from so many unique perspectives had inspired and challenged the entire group of students, as well as the professor.
But now, back at XYZ, Greg fully realized how this company’s attempt to force today’s reality into yesterday’s management patterns was seriously jeopardizing the viability of the entire enterprise.
Just this morning, Greg attempted to share ideas about a problem he observed with marketing a new product. “Maybe we should consider finding a new marketing firm, one that understood the Latino culture, since this product were be a perfect fit for Hispanic Americans newly immigrated to the United States,” he suggested. Greg knew quite a lot about this market, after graduating from Spanish language classes through the Army while a Reserve soldier, and studying cultural diversity, multiculturalism and the growing Latino population in the U.S. From this experience, he knew the XYZ product would be a shoe-in for working-class Latinos.
But Greg’s senior XYZ executive boss, even before Greg could finish his last sentence, quickly interjected he didn’t have time to hear such ideas, and that Greg was “stepping out of bounds” with this suggestion. Greg was hired as an accountant, afterall, and marketing was “not his problem,” he reminded the new hire.
Managing diversity, as a way of thinking, is new and very different from traditional business perspective. While the traditional focus has been on individual and interpersonal aspects alone, what is new is seeing diversity as an issue for the entire organization, even involving the very way organizations are structured.
The way organizations are managed and the way managers do their jobs is critical to diversity management. It is grounded “in a very special definition of ‘managing’; creating an environment that allows the people being managed to reach their full potential. At best, it means getting from employees not only everything you have a right to expect, but everything they have to offer,” Thomas writes.
Greg, a white male from the traditional “dominant culture,” had much to offer XYZ, coming from his unique knowledge gained from world travel and multicultural studies. But after this final incident, Greg knew he would never fill his true potential by staying with a company that had no time for his ideas.
“Their loss, my gain...” he sighed and began packing his personal belongings.
-----------
By Susa Klopfer, M.B.A.
Diversity consultant, speaker and author
An excerpt from "Profit From Diversity: Getting Along With Others."
CreateSpace Publish Date: November 15, 2010 (National Education Week)
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Muslims Celebrating On 9/11? Things Are Not Always What They Seem
Date: 9/8/2010 Fisher & Phillips LLP
Perception is often more important than reality, and perception can vary radically among people of different religions and national origins, say representatives of law firm Fisher * Phillips LLP. The firm has sent out the following article that relates to 9/11 and the relationship of this date to Ramadan and the Muslim faith:
Perception is often more important than reality, and perception can vary radically among people of different religions and national origins, say representatives of law firm Fisher * Phillips LLP. The firm has sent out the following article that relates to 9/11 and the relationship of this date to Ramadan and the Muslim faith:
Ramadan is a time of fasting and prayer for Muslims. Ramadan does not fall on the same dates every year, as is frequently the case with religious holidays of other faiths. When Ramadan ends, it is marked with great celebrations by members of the Muslim faith.
This year, the end of Ramadan, also known as Eid ul-Fitr or the Eid, falls on or around September 11. In predominantly Islamic countries, there would be no question that the celebrations on September 11 were meant to celebrate the Eid and not to demean the tragic events that took place in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania in 2001.
But in the United States, Ramadan is not commonplace, and most people don't even know what it is. So when a non-Muslim in the United States learns that Muslims are celebrating on September 11, it may not be as obvious that the celebrations are unrelated to the tragedy on 9/11. Such misconceptions can lead to religious harassment or even worse, it can lead to violence.
While these misconceptions are relevant everywhere, they are especially relevant in the workplace. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on religion and in 1972, the Act was amended to require accommodation to religious practices and beliefs so long as it does not impose an "undue hardship." It is likely that employees will talk about the September 11 tragedy at work and it is also probable that some employees will share information about celebrating the Eid. Without advance education, these conversations at work may lead to harassment, discrimination or even violence.
The news media is saturated with stories about controversial Muslim issues – the mosque planned on a site in lower Manhattan near Ground Zero and more recently, a Florida-based church that intends to burn copies of the Quran to mark the September 11 terrorist attacks – so it is likely that these will be topics of conversation, if not controversy, among employees.
Since you cannot fully prevent these conversations at work it is best to be prepared and plan ahead for September 11. To help to avoid misunderstandings, consider educating employees about the upcoming Eid and its significance to the religion of Islam. While some people may still feel offended by the celebrations, many others will be more understanding and enlightened. If your employees already are talking about these issues, you may want to remind them about your policies against harassment and discrimination, and about the importance of respecting all points of view even though they may be unfamiliar or controversial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Legal Alert offers general advice about a specific employment topic. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice for any particular fact situation.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
November Publishing Date Set For New Cultural Diversity Book
Profit From Cultural Diversity: Getting Along With Others by Susan Klopfer is set for publication by CreateSpace in both e-book and print book formats to coincide with American Education Week in the third week of November.
Author Susan Klopfer, M.B.A.
Read More --
Older Workers Take Note: You Don't Have To Tolerate Ageist Remarks
Would you let employees “tease” and older worker by calling him or her derrogatory names? "Old man," "old guy" and an "old fuddy duddy?" One California company apparently did, and then fired the older worker. But guess what -- this all came back on Google, Inc. And now, a recent California Supreme Court decision suggests that it may be more difficult for employers to obtain summary judgment in certain discrimination cases, and reaffirms the importance of employers following best practices to prevent and remedy workplace discrimination and harassment.
Following the court’s decision in Reid v. Google, Inc., employers should: (1) confirm, or update as necessary, policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment to ensure such policies prohibit potentially discriminatory/harassing comments by all employees; (2) conduct training sessions for all employees on such policies, and emphasize that "stray comments" may lead to company liability; and (3) take appropriate and timely disciplinary action against employees who violate company policy by making inappropriate and potentially discriminatory/harassing comments, among other prohibited conduct.
Here’s what happened in Reid:
Google hired Brian Reid as director of operations and director of engineering when he was 52. In Reid's only performance review, Google noted his achievements and capabilities, but recommended that "[a]dapting to the Google culture is the primary task for the first year here.… Google is simply different." Reid made allegations that during his Google employment the company's vice president of engineering operations and other Google employees made disparaging comments to Reid about his age. The alleged comments included that Reid was "slow," "fuzzy,", "sluggish" and "lethargic." Employees also allegedly called Reid an "old man," "old guy" and an "old fuddy duddy," and stated that Reid's ideas were "obsolete" and "too old to matter" and that his knowledge was ancient. They also allegedly joked that Reid's office placard should be in the shape of an "LP" (i.e. a vinyl record) rather than the customary (then current music format) "CD."
In October 2003, Google's vice president of engineering removed Reid from his director of operations position, and relieved Reid of his responsibilities (but not his title) as director of engineering. Two younger individuals assumed Reid's role and duties. Google then tasked Reid with developing the company's Graduate Degree Program and Google Scholar Program to train and recruit engineers. In February 2004, Google informed Reid that its Engineering Department no longer had a position for him. No other department offered Reid a position and he left Google on February 27, 2004.
Reid sued Google, alleging various causes of action, including age discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The trial court granted Google's motion for summary judgment on Reid's age discrimination claims. The court determined that Reid had failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether Google's assertedly legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Reid were pretextual. The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court. The Court of Appeal considered Reid's evidence of discrimination, including statistical evidence, the alleged stray remarks quoted above, and evidence about Reid's demotion and termination. Although Google had filed written objections prior to the summary judgment hearing on the statistical evidence and stray remarks, the trial court had not ruled on them, and the Court of Appeal determined that the objections were not waived.
The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal in a unanimous opinion. The Court stated that adoption of the "stray remarks" doctrine "would result in a court's categorical exclusion of evidence even if the evidence was relevant." Such remarks could be circumstantial evidence of discrimination, even if not made in the context of an employment decision or uttered by a non-decision-maker.
The Reid Court stated that trial courts must base summary judgment rulings on the totality of evidence in the record, "including any relevant discriminatory remarks," although the Court does not elaborate on what criteria courts should apply to determine which potentially discriminatory remarks are "relevant."
In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that "weak" cases of discrimination may still be resolved on summary judgment. Yet, by permitting trial courts to consider stray comments in ruling on summary judgment motions, the Reid Court has given employers another hurdle to mount in discrimination cases involving evidence of such comments.
It is important to note that the Reid decision was based on the summary judgment standard. Thus, the Court did not find that discrimination by Google actually occurred. Rather, it found that the question of whether or not discrimination occurred needs to be decided by a jury rather than the trial court on summary judgment.
Following the court’s decision in Reid v. Google, Inc., employers should: (1) confirm, or update as necessary, policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment to ensure such policies prohibit potentially discriminatory/harassing comments by all employees; (2) conduct training sessions for all employees on such policies, and emphasize that "stray comments" may lead to company liability; and (3) take appropriate and timely disciplinary action against employees who violate company policy by making inappropriate and potentially discriminatory/harassing comments, among other prohibited conduct.
Here’s what happened in Reid:
Google hired Brian Reid as director of operations and director of engineering when he was 52. In Reid's only performance review, Google noted his achievements and capabilities, but recommended that "[a]dapting to the Google culture is the primary task for the first year here.… Google is simply different." Reid made allegations that during his Google employment the company's vice president of engineering operations and other Google employees made disparaging comments to Reid about his age. The alleged comments included that Reid was "slow," "fuzzy,", "sluggish" and "lethargic." Employees also allegedly called Reid an "old man," "old guy" and an "old fuddy duddy," and stated that Reid's ideas were "obsolete" and "too old to matter" and that his knowledge was ancient. They also allegedly joked that Reid's office placard should be in the shape of an "LP" (i.e. a vinyl record) rather than the customary (then current music format) "CD."
In October 2003, Google's vice president of engineering removed Reid from his director of operations position, and relieved Reid of his responsibilities (but not his title) as director of engineering. Two younger individuals assumed Reid's role and duties. Google then tasked Reid with developing the company's Graduate Degree Program and Google Scholar Program to train and recruit engineers. In February 2004, Google informed Reid that its Engineering Department no longer had a position for him. No other department offered Reid a position and he left Google on February 27, 2004.
Reid sued Google, alleging various causes of action, including age discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The trial court granted Google's motion for summary judgment on Reid's age discrimination claims. The court determined that Reid had failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether Google's assertedly legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Reid were pretextual. The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court. The Court of Appeal considered Reid's evidence of discrimination, including statistical evidence, the alleged stray remarks quoted above, and evidence about Reid's demotion and termination. Although Google had filed written objections prior to the summary judgment hearing on the statistical evidence and stray remarks, the trial court had not ruled on them, and the Court of Appeal determined that the objections were not waived.
The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal in a unanimous opinion. The Court stated that adoption of the "stray remarks" doctrine "would result in a court's categorical exclusion of evidence even if the evidence was relevant." Such remarks could be circumstantial evidence of discrimination, even if not made in the context of an employment decision or uttered by a non-decision-maker.
The Reid Court stated that trial courts must base summary judgment rulings on the totality of evidence in the record, "including any relevant discriminatory remarks," although the Court does not elaborate on what criteria courts should apply to determine which potentially discriminatory remarks are "relevant."
In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that "weak" cases of discrimination may still be resolved on summary judgment. Yet, by permitting trial courts to consider stray comments in ruling on summary judgment motions, the Reid Court has given employers another hurdle to mount in discrimination cases involving evidence of such comments.
It is important to note that the Reid decision was based on the summary judgment standard. Thus, the Court did not find that discrimination by Google actually occurred. Rather, it found that the question of whether or not discrimination occurred needs to be decided by a jury rather than the trial court on summary judgment.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Actionable hostile work environment can be based upon a single action.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that it is up to a jury to determine whether, in fact, a single instance of uninvited intimate physical contact may be sufficient to support a claim of hostile work environment. Berry v. Chicago Transit Authority, 7th Cir., No. 07-2288, August 23, 2010.
Cynthia Berry was hired by the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) in 2002 as a carpenter. In January 2006, Berry was one of only two female employees among about 50 individuals working in Area 315, and was the only female of the 15 carpenters working there. During breaks, employees in Area 315 often played cards at a picnic-style table in a break area. During a morning break on January 17 or 18, Berry sat down at the table with three male employees. A fourth male employee, Carmichael, sat down straddling the bench, with his back toward Berry. According to Berry, Carmichael began rubbing his back against Berry’s shoulder. She jumped up, told him to stop, and moved to the other end of the table. Although another employee told Berry to get up, Berry remained seated. Berry alleges that Carmichael then lifted her from behind, grabbing her by the breasts, and rubbed her body against his before throwing her to the ground “with force.” She further alleges that Carmichael then pushed her into a fence.
On the following day, Berry reported the incident to one of her supervisors (Gorman), who – according to Berry – told her that she was a “pain in the butt” and that she could lose her job if she filed charges against Carmichael. Berry alleges that Gorman also said that he was “going to do whatever it takes to protect CTA.” However, Gorman reported the incident to a CTA EEO investigator, and collected statements from Berry and the others who witnessed the incident for review by the investigator. In the meantime, Berry called the police, reporting that she had “been attacked” at work. The police spoke to Berry, Carmichael and Gorman, and determined, based on that investigation, that Berry actually had been the aggressor. The CTA investigation ultimately resulted in the same finding. Berry contends that Gorman sabotaged the investigation to prevent the alleged harassers from being punished; she then filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The lower court granted summary judgment in CTA’s favor, dismissing all of Berry’s claims. It dismissed the gender discrimination claim based on the absence of an adverse employment action, and the retaliation claim because Berry raised the issue only during the summary judgment process. The lower court also found that the hostile environment claim could not go forward because CTA took prompt and reasonable steps to discover and rectify the actions complained of by Berry.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of the gender discrimination and retaliation claims, but reversed the dismissal of the hostile environment claim. In order for that claim to survive summary judgment, Berry had to show that she was subjected to unwelcome conduct because of her sex, that the conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a hostile environment, and that there was a basis for CTA’s liability. Berry argues that she experienced a hostile environment when Carmichael allegedly rubbed his body with hers; she also argues that Gorman’s dismissive comments to her about her complaints form the basis for CTA’s liability. The lower court had discounted Berry’s uncorroborated testimony on those issues when it found in CTA’s favor.
The Seventh Circuit spelled out the principles upon which it based its decision, specifically finding that personal knowledge or first-hand experience of a plaintiff can create a “disputed fact” that can only be resolved by a jury. According to the Seventh Circuit, the lower court improperly discounted Berry’s testimony, which was based on her own personal encounters with both Carmichael and Gorman and therefore, according to the Seventh Circuit, could create issues of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment. The Court further held that a single act can create a hostile environment if it is severe enough. Carmichael’s actions, as alleged by Berry, qualify as such an act. Notably, the Seventh Circuit also determined – based solely on Berry’s uncorroborated testimony of Gorman’s remarks – that a “reasonable factfinder” could come to the conclusion that CTA, through its manager, had “maliciously thwarted any legitimate investigation, and that CTA was therefore negligent or worse in responding to [Berry’s] report of harassment.”
The primary method for employers to avoid this situation is to be able to show thorough and detailed investigation training, and to ensure that managers’ responses to complainant/employees are consistent, objective, and by-the-book, in order to establish some defense to the uncorroborated testimony of such employees.
From Ogletree Deakins, Employment Law Matters
(Posted on August 30, 2010 by Maria Danaher )
Cynthia Berry was hired by the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) in 2002 as a carpenter. In January 2006, Berry was one of only two female employees among about 50 individuals working in Area 315, and was the only female of the 15 carpenters working there. During breaks, employees in Area 315 often played cards at a picnic-style table in a break area. During a morning break on January 17 or 18, Berry sat down at the table with three male employees. A fourth male employee, Carmichael, sat down straddling the bench, with his back toward Berry. According to Berry, Carmichael began rubbing his back against Berry’s shoulder. She jumped up, told him to stop, and moved to the other end of the table. Although another employee told Berry to get up, Berry remained seated. Berry alleges that Carmichael then lifted her from behind, grabbing her by the breasts, and rubbed her body against his before throwing her to the ground “with force.” She further alleges that Carmichael then pushed her into a fence.
On the following day, Berry reported the incident to one of her supervisors (Gorman), who – according to Berry – told her that she was a “pain in the butt” and that she could lose her job if she filed charges against Carmichael. Berry alleges that Gorman also said that he was “going to do whatever it takes to protect CTA.” However, Gorman reported the incident to a CTA EEO investigator, and collected statements from Berry and the others who witnessed the incident for review by the investigator. In the meantime, Berry called the police, reporting that she had “been attacked” at work. The police spoke to Berry, Carmichael and Gorman, and determined, based on that investigation, that Berry actually had been the aggressor. The CTA investigation ultimately resulted in the same finding. Berry contends that Gorman sabotaged the investigation to prevent the alleged harassers from being punished; she then filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The lower court granted summary judgment in CTA’s favor, dismissing all of Berry’s claims. It dismissed the gender discrimination claim based on the absence of an adverse employment action, and the retaliation claim because Berry raised the issue only during the summary judgment process. The lower court also found that the hostile environment claim could not go forward because CTA took prompt and reasonable steps to discover and rectify the actions complained of by Berry.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of the gender discrimination and retaliation claims, but reversed the dismissal of the hostile environment claim. In order for that claim to survive summary judgment, Berry had to show that she was subjected to unwelcome conduct because of her sex, that the conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a hostile environment, and that there was a basis for CTA’s liability. Berry argues that she experienced a hostile environment when Carmichael allegedly rubbed his body with hers; she also argues that Gorman’s dismissive comments to her about her complaints form the basis for CTA’s liability. The lower court had discounted Berry’s uncorroborated testimony on those issues when it found in CTA’s favor.
The Seventh Circuit spelled out the principles upon which it based its decision, specifically finding that personal knowledge or first-hand experience of a plaintiff can create a “disputed fact” that can only be resolved by a jury. According to the Seventh Circuit, the lower court improperly discounted Berry’s testimony, which was based on her own personal encounters with both Carmichael and Gorman and therefore, according to the Seventh Circuit, could create issues of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment. The Court further held that a single act can create a hostile environment if it is severe enough. Carmichael’s actions, as alleged by Berry, qualify as such an act. Notably, the Seventh Circuit also determined – based solely on Berry’s uncorroborated testimony of Gorman’s remarks – that a “reasonable factfinder” could come to the conclusion that CTA, through its manager, had “maliciously thwarted any legitimate investigation, and that CTA was therefore negligent or worse in responding to [Berry’s] report of harassment.”
The primary method for employers to avoid this situation is to be able to show thorough and detailed investigation training, and to ensure that managers’ responses to complainant/employees are consistent, objective, and by-the-book, in order to establish some defense to the uncorroborated testimony of such employees.
From Ogletree Deakins, Employment Law Matters
(Posted on August 30, 2010 by Maria Danaher )
Monday, September 6, 2010
Diversity Essay: Social Thoughts of American Civil Rights Organizer John R. (Salter) Hunter Gray
Editors' Comments
by Neal McLeod & Rob Nestor
Saskatchewan Indian Federated College
The Journal of Indigenous Thought continues in this issue to document the intellectual, philosophical, religious and narrative traditions of Indigenous people throughout the world. The current issue draws upon the insights of the work of several people, including Dr. Roy Wortman (Kenyon College), Christine Watson (Saskatchewan Indian Federated College), Solomon Ratt (Saskatchewan Indian Federated College), and Neal McLeod (Saskatchewan Indian Federated College). All of the pieces contained within this journal point to the dynamic nature of Indigenous intellectual/ narrative traditions, with a play between traditions and contemporary realities being demonstrated.
Dr. Wortman's pieces, "Telling Their Own Stories, Building Their Own Strength: Dr. Dave Warren on Framing and Imparting American Indian History" and " 'I Consider Myself a Real Red' : The Social Thought of American Civil Rights Organizer John (Salter) Hunter Gray" explore the work and lives of two prominent Native Americans. Wortman in the two pieces engages in a thoughtful dialogue with both Warren and Gray with neither being an "informant" or an "object of research." Rather, the words and thoughts of both are conveyed through the interviews which have been skillfully edited by Wortman. Furthermore, the interviews are placed within a larger interpretative framework with references to other contexts and situations which amplify the words and contributions of both Warren and Gray.
In the essay, " ' I Consider Myself a Real Red'," important points of contrast are drawn between the experience of Black Americans and the civil rights movement and the attempt of Native Americans to hold on to their identity in the wake of the pressures of assimilation: "Where Black Americans sought to become part of the broader United States society, American Indians sought to remain as much as possible apart from that sphere because of their historical and legal traditions based on treaties" (p. 7). The achievements of Gray demonstrate the challenges of trying to balance the need to maintain identity within the rubric of collective minority as well as the need to participate within the larger society. Perhaps, it is through ambiguity that emerges in this attempt to navigate various cultural and political frameworks, that Gray denounces essentialism. Instead, Gray holds that cultures are essentially an organic, fluid activity, but at the same need a real material/ physical grounding such as that found in Treaty rights (e.g. access to land base) and of the economic contexts that people find themselves in.
Roy Wortman and David Warren explore important issues of historiography within the context of Native American history in the paper "Telling Their Own Story, Building Their Own Strengths: Dr. David Warren on Framing and Imparting American Indian History." Given the rise of more writings about Native American history by Native American writers, the discussion of these issues is certainly timely. David Warren's contribution to the Native American history perhaps rests in seeing "oral traditions of a tribal group as a living source as a much as a document" (p. 6). Thus, instead of Native American culture and history existing only in the past as collections of relics waiting to be catalogued and preserved, Native American culture and history is rather a living process in a constant state of development. Like Gray, Warren is also suspicious of essentialistic cultural discourses, and urges historians to engage in multi-layered studies of collective historical experience.
"I Consider Myself a Real Red:" The Social Thought of American Civil Rights Organizer John R. (Salter) Hunter Gray by Roy T. Wortman, Department of History, Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio 43022 USA
Click here to read.
http://hunterbear.org/Red%20essay%20on%20Hunter%20Gray.htm
by Neal McLeod & Rob Nestor
Saskatchewan Indian Federated College
The Journal of Indigenous Thought continues in this issue to document the intellectual, philosophical, religious and narrative traditions of Indigenous people throughout the world. The current issue draws upon the insights of the work of several people, including Dr. Roy Wortman (Kenyon College), Christine Watson (Saskatchewan Indian Federated College), Solomon Ratt (Saskatchewan Indian Federated College), and Neal McLeod (Saskatchewan Indian Federated College). All of the pieces contained within this journal point to the dynamic nature of Indigenous intellectual/ narrative traditions, with a play between traditions and contemporary realities being demonstrated.
Dr. Wortman's pieces, "Telling Their Own Stories, Building Their Own Strength: Dr. Dave Warren on Framing and Imparting American Indian History" and " 'I Consider Myself a Real Red' : The Social Thought of American Civil Rights Organizer John (Salter) Hunter Gray" explore the work and lives of two prominent Native Americans. Wortman in the two pieces engages in a thoughtful dialogue with both Warren and Gray with neither being an "informant" or an "object of research." Rather, the words and thoughts of both are conveyed through the interviews which have been skillfully edited by Wortman. Furthermore, the interviews are placed within a larger interpretative framework with references to other contexts and situations which amplify the words and contributions of both Warren and Gray.
In the essay, " ' I Consider Myself a Real Red'," important points of contrast are drawn between the experience of Black Americans and the civil rights movement and the attempt of Native Americans to hold on to their identity in the wake of the pressures of assimilation: "Where Black Americans sought to become part of the broader United States society, American Indians sought to remain as much as possible apart from that sphere because of their historical and legal traditions based on treaties" (p. 7). The achievements of Gray demonstrate the challenges of trying to balance the need to maintain identity within the rubric of collective minority as well as the need to participate within the larger society. Perhaps, it is through ambiguity that emerges in this attempt to navigate various cultural and political frameworks, that Gray denounces essentialism. Instead, Gray holds that cultures are essentially an organic, fluid activity, but at the same need a real material/ physical grounding such as that found in Treaty rights (e.g. access to land base) and of the economic contexts that people find themselves in.
Roy Wortman and David Warren explore important issues of historiography within the context of Native American history in the paper "Telling Their Own Story, Building Their Own Strengths: Dr. David Warren on Framing and Imparting American Indian History." Given the rise of more writings about Native American history by Native American writers, the discussion of these issues is certainly timely. David Warren's contribution to the Native American history perhaps rests in seeing "oral traditions of a tribal group as a living source as a much as a document" (p. 6). Thus, instead of Native American culture and history existing only in the past as collections of relics waiting to be catalogued and preserved, Native American culture and history is rather a living process in a constant state of development. Like Gray, Warren is also suspicious of essentialistic cultural discourses, and urges historians to engage in multi-layered studies of collective historical experience.
"I Consider Myself a Real Red:" The Social Thought of American Civil Rights Organizer John R. (Salter) Hunter Gray by Roy T. Wortman, Department of History, Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio 43022 USA
Click here to read.
http://hunterbear.org/Red%20essay%20on%20Hunter%20Gray.htm
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Where Have All Their Marbles Gone? (Long Time Passing...)
It is looking more and more like today's version of the old protest song "Where Have All The Flowers Gone?" is quickly turning into "Where Have All Their Marbles Gone?"
To use the weak excuse, "They won't let us build a church in their country, so they can't build one in ours" is simply pathetic. I really thought Newt Gingrich was better educated than to make such a statement. Religious freedom is one of our most fundamental liberties, and a founding principle of our nation. But apparently, Gingrich didn't learn this wherever he got his history degree. Our laws protect the right to build a house of worship whether it is a Mormon stake house, a Lutheran church or a synagogue -- and this includes a mosque.
Even for those who place their faith in the new church of Glenn Beck, please remember that throughout our nation's history, Jews, Protestants, Catholics and Muslims -- including the Irish, Italians, and all who brought these non-native religions to this country -- have all been victims of fear and discrimination.
We must speak out to see that tolerance and justice prevail. We must go to the polls in November. This is our duty to speak out and support what we know is right. Political leaders like Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Sen. Orrin Hatch, who both have come out in support of religious freedom, should be praised for standing up for religious freedom in the face of such political and social pressure.
When will we ever learn? When will we ever learn?
To use the weak excuse, "They won't let us build a church in their country, so they can't build one in ours" is simply pathetic. I really thought Newt Gingrich was better educated than to make such a statement. Religious freedom is one of our most fundamental liberties, and a founding principle of our nation. But apparently, Gingrich didn't learn this wherever he got his history degree. Our laws protect the right to build a house of worship whether it is a Mormon stake house, a Lutheran church or a synagogue -- and this includes a mosque.
Even for those who place their faith in the new church of Glenn Beck, please remember that throughout our nation's history, Jews, Protestants, Catholics and Muslims -- including the Irish, Italians, and all who brought these non-native religions to this country -- have all been victims of fear and discrimination.
We must speak out to see that tolerance and justice prevail. We must go to the polls in November. This is our duty to speak out and support what we know is right. Political leaders like Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Sen. Orrin Hatch, who both have come out in support of religious freedom, should be praised for standing up for religious freedom in the face of such political and social pressure.
When will we ever learn? When will we ever learn?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)