Subscribe by RSS
Subscribe by EmailWhy Harassment Training is Essential & Must Go Beyond Sexual Harassment
A few employment law fundamentals:
- Harassment based on race or other protected characteristics is analyzed legally under the same standards as sexual harassment.
- Offensive graffiti targeting employees because of their race, sex, or other protected characteristic, if sufficiently severe or pervasive, may rise to the level of an unlawful hostile work environment.
- To have a shot at avoiding liability for harassment of its employees based on any protected characteristic, a company must respond properly to employee complaints.
Now you already knew that, didn’t you?
Surely the management of the country’s second-largest grocery chain knows that too, wouldn’t you think?
Apparently not.
A recent news story reports that the EEOC has sued Albertson’s Inc. for harassment of black and Hispanic workers at a Denver distribution center.
The allegations?
- “Over the past decade, Albertson’s ‘failed to respond to countless drawings and paintings of swastikas, nooses and other threats of violence against black and Hispanic employees.’”
- “Warehouse employees and at least one non-employee made ‘countless complaints’ about the racist graffiti.”
- “In response to the complaints, one management-level official said, according to the suit, Truck drivers do the graffiti; I don’t.”
- Albertson’s discriminated against minority employees when making job assignments and enforcing disciplinary policies.
Normally I don’t publicize mere allegations of a lawsuit. Anyone with a few hundred bucks to pay the filing and process server fees can file a lawsuit alleging anything.
I feel a little differently about lawsuits filed by the EEOC. I may be wrong, but as a taxpayer helping pay the salaries of the EEOC attorneys and staff, I would like to believe the agency does not file suit unless it has pretty good evidence.
That disclaimer aside, and assuming there is truth to the allegations, a lesson from this lawsuit is that corporate America has a ways to go in training management to recognize and respond to harassment complaints.
Another lesson is that in training, as in written policies, it is important to avoid the commonly-encountered overemphasis on sexual harassment. If I had a dollar for every company whose employee handbook has a section entitled “sexual harassment policy” and no mention of other forms of unlawful harassment . . . .
Read the story from The Denver Business Journal:“Albertson’s under fire from EEOC.”
For another recent racial harassment example, see: “Home Depot settles racial discrimination case” (suit alleged supervisors made frequent offensive remarks about employee’s race, such as “black boy,” “black man,” and “black dog,” and management condoned racially derogatory comments made to employee by a co-worker, such as “worthless (racial epithet)” and that Supreme Court had found black people “inferior.”). If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing.
As someone who does a LOT of anti-harassment education, I’d suggest that companies that ask for training for their employees that “will help us create a respectful work environment, make them understand the law, and help them know what to do if t here is a problem” and then tell you that they want 200 people to attend a 30 minute session to accomplish the above are the same ones who allow an environment like this to flourish. “Training” only works if it includes interactive elements and promotes critical thinking. I do a lot of training in Cal, where anti-harassment training is required by law, and too many companies are interested in CYA vs. substance. As for management training, I only do it if I can start at the top of the house with the senior execs. If they won’t take the training, they won’t understand what to do when their managers are trained to take appropriate and helpful action, won’t support it and will make the outcome of the training useless. Thanks for commenting, Fran. I know you know what you’re talking about. Ultimately CYA won’t work if that’s all it is. The proof is in the pudding. Whether less-than optimal training is better than none, both in legal CYA terms, and in terms of effectiveness, I can’t say. Good chance it is. Of course, California gets what it asks for. Mandate employer spending, and many employers will seek the least costly and minimalist mode of compliance. Why did California not trust existing law, with the threat of million dollar verdicts, to deter harassment and encourage training? I don’t know. Personally I would trust it and leave well enough alone. But I couldn’t get elected in California. I’m not anti-business. [...] “Why Harassment Training is Essential & Must Go Beyond Sexual Harassment” (referring to racial harassment; discusses another such case). [...]
Related Posts
Comments
Leave a comment
When you get right down to it, from what you’ve commented on, it doesn’t really matter where the cause of the writings or drawings came from.
If the company valued their employees, they would make a genuine effort to combat and get rid of offensive things as soon as possible.
It’s not only the law, but human decency.