
The other day, out of the blue, I got a call from Jon Jacobs, a writer for eFinancialCareers, a financial services industry job site. Jon asked me if I had heard about a case recently filed by the EEOC against Merrill Lynch.
Undeterred by my confession of ignorance, he proceeded to tell me about it and bend my ear a bit. About 45 minutes later, he had a story with an expert source (me), touching on national origin harassment, harassment training, and workplace culture — and I had another nice media mention.
National origin-based remarks are bad news.
The EEOC lawsuit involves a quantitative analyst’s complaint that he was fired after being verbally harassed about being an Iranian and a Muslim. Alleged comments included being told that “the reason you are not allowed on the trading floor is because you are from a country which has a high risk factor and a threat.”
Ouch. Not the kind of evidence companies and defense lawyers like having to confront. (Well, I’ll take that back. We defense lawyers love a challenge, and there’s a promise of some serious billable hours there . . .)
Seriously, a couple of points:
- National origin discrimination is prohibited. This includes nations fingered by our President as an enemy in the “War on Terror” or a member of the “Axis of Evil.” This is America. Individuals have rights, no matter how evil their country of origin (unless they are “unlawful combatants”).
- Words alone may result in employment law liability, as sexual harassment cases have proven time and again. Less well known, perhaps, is that verbal harassment based on other protected characteristics (e.g., race, national origin, age, disability) may be actionable under the same standards as sexual harassment.
- Firing an alleged harasser is not the only way to remedy harassment and reduce the resulting legal exposure. But defense of a harassment case is certainly much easier if the employer can show it did so promptly upon learning of a problem and investigating it.
Do as I say in harassment training, not as I do.
Jon’s angle was that there’s a disconnect between the ideal harassment-free world of harassment and EEOC training sessions and strict official corporate policies, on the one hand, and the real trading-floor world that, he says, has more of a locker-room atmosphere, on the other.
Sorry to disappoint you locker-room stock traders, but the essence of my response is:
If your employer’s diversity guidelines say one thing but workplace culture says something different, “Follow the policy,” Lenard says. If you don’t, and something you said gets cited in a discrimination complaint, you won’t be able to save yourself by pointing out that you just did what everyone around you was doing. “There is a high likelihood that you are going to be scapegoated and pushed out of there, if something like this happens,” says Lenard.
If there seems to be a disconnect between what a company preaches in harassment and EEOC training sessions and what it appears to practice in the day-to-day workplace, chances are the wagons will circle tightly around company policy as soon as someone complains, with the “do as I tell you, not as I do” crowd firmly reasserting command.
EEOC has much interest in anti-Muslim cases post-9/11.
Jon also quoted me as saying: “Since 9/11 they’ve (the EEOC) been interested in Muslim and Middle East kind of discrimination cases. It’s really a sensitive area.”
Cases in point:
Read the whole story at the eFinancialCareers financial services careers site:
EEOC vs. Merrill Lynch: Perils of Workplace Culture

Find Diversity employment at DiversityJobs.com.
Sphere: Related Content
on June 29, 2007
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing.
[...] Lessons from an EEOC Wall Street harassment lawsuitThe other day, out of the blue, I got a call from Jon Jacobs, a writer for eFinancialCareers, a financial services industry job site. Jon asked me if I had heard about a case recently filed by the EEOC against Merrill Lynch. … [...]