SEVEN TYPES OF DISCRIMINATION MANAGERS MUST AVOID, BY L D SLEDGE, J.D.

The following article was taken fully from HR Daily Advisor, June 23, 2011

Today's HR Daily Advisor Tip:

The 7 Types of Discrimination Your Managers and Supervisors Must Avoid

Topic: HR Policies and Procedures

In yesterday's Advisor, we found out what fairness means to a jury; today, discrimination, the dark side of fairness, plus an introduction to the famous "50/50": the compendium of 50 employment laws in 50 states.

Nondiscrimination is the legal side of fairness. Illegal discrimination comes in many forms, some obvious and overt, some subtle and hard to spot. Here's what to avoid:

1: Overt discrimination (I don't like Xs)

This is the out-in-the-open type of discrimination that most people think of when they hear the word. For example:

• I don't like to work with [women, men, old people, white people, black people, Asian people, disabled people].
• My customers don't like to deal with [women, men, old people, white people, black people, Asian people, disabled people].
• I don't like to hire [young women because they get pregnant and go on leave].
• I'm not promoting [anyone over 40—they don't have enough energy].

2: Stereotyping (Xs can't X)

Stereotyping usually takes the form of "Xs can't X."

• Women aren't strong enough.
• Men aren't compassionate enough.
• Xs aren't smart enough.

3: Patronizing (Xs shouldn't X)

This is a special form of stereotyping that seems well-intentioned, but is, in general, discriminatory. For example:

• Terry is active in the community; he/she won't want to relocate.
• Parents with young children shouldn't travel.
• Women shouldn't travel alone.
• Pregnant women can't [travel, lift, move, be stressed].

4: 'Avoidance' Discrimination

Some managers try to play a game of avoidance discrimination. They say, "If I can get in trouble talking to X, no problem. I'll never talk to X." Don't use this thinking; it is discriminatory and it won't fly.

5: Playing favorites (I always turn to my friends)

All managers have groups with whom they feel most comfortable. But if you always turn to that group when you need to hire, you are discriminating. And you've got friends at work with whom you're comfortable. If they always get the plum projects, bonuses, and promotions, you are discriminating.

---

Operate in multiple states? That's a real compliance challenge, but with "The 50-50" (50 Employment Laws in 50 States); answers are at your fingertips. Wage/hour? Leave? Child labor? Discrimination? All there in easy-to-read chart form. Get more details.

---

6: De facto (I just never seem to hire Xs)

One of the more subtle forms of discrimination is called "de facto." In these situations, there are never any direct statements against hiring or promoting certain types of people—it just never seems to happen. For example, you're not against hiring women in a certain job, but although many qualified women have applied, of the last 50 hires, all 50 were men.

7: Reverse discrimination

Reverse discrimination means discrimination against someone as a result of your attempts not to discriminate against someone else. You probably don't have significant exposure unless you have a very strong, quota-type program favoring one protected group

WALMART WINS---WHAT NOW? BY L. D. SLEDGE, J.D.

 

  The last blog was written prior to the decision by the US Supreme Court refusing to allow the huge class action involving 1.5 million claimants to proceed.  The lawsuit claimed that Wal-Mart systematically paid women less and did not provide equal opportunity for advancement. It contended that all women employed by Wal-Mart since 1998 should be part of the class.

    The court’s decision was not about the discrimination itself, but around a procedural issue, and whether the technical rules for forming a class were followed. The court decided that the group could not be certified as a class.

   To form a class, you have to have so many members that it is impracticable to have separate trials for all of them. The Wal-Mart women unequivocally met that standard. But the members of the class have to share a well-defined common interest, and it must be clear that resolving the cases of the few actual representatives would effectively resolve all the cases of all the class members.
 

  The Supreme Court just didn’t see that literally millions of separate employment decisions relating to women in many different jobs, could be viewed as meeting the class requirements.
 

   Having been involved in several class actions myself, I am aware of the difficulty in getting a group with similar claims certified as a class. In this case, I am sure there were political and social-economic considerations. The ramifications of a lawsuit of this magnitude being permitted to continue to jury trial are beyond comprehension, for a possible judgment could be in the billions, and like locusts these suits would proliferate through every large corporation in the US, creating more economic disruption than the losses to individuals by not being treated properly.  But it did teach Walmart a lesson and now they have largely corrected these errors, and other big companies have taken that lesson seriously as well. So all is well that ends well--I guess it ended well for Corporate America—what’s good for the duck isn’t necessarily good for the hunter.  Here the duck won. The hunter will have to reload.

   My question is now what can employees do when seeking redress as a group against a large company. For the time being, the companies are safe if they watch their step. For more, read the following link

http://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/articles/HR_Policies_Procedures_WalMart_Decision_Supreme_Court.aspx?Source=HAC&Effort=15

THE WALMART JUGGERNAUT, BY L D SLEDGE, J.D.

THE WALMART JUGGERNAUT

Betty Dukes, a Walmart greeter, far right in the above picture, filed a sex discrimination suit against Walmart in 2,000 saying she had been denied training she needed to receive promotion. It is now before the US Supreme court for a decision if it should be allowed to proceed as a class action involving millions of female employees. Her lawsuit says Walmart systematically discriminated against female employees who were underrepresentated in management positions and were paid less than male colleagues.

Earlier court’s decisions let the case proceed after a judge aid that there was “significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination.” The case can cost Walmart billions if allowed to proceed. Corporate America is watching nervously from the sidelines. Twenty major firms, including GE and Microsoft, filed in support of Walmart. If Duke wins, lawyers expect a whole new set of discrimination class actions will be brought, not just on behalf of women, but also for minorities and those with disabilities. A win for Walmart would be a major blow for nationwide job-bias lawsuits, making it harder for employees who work in different stores and hold different jobs have enough in common to be a class.

Duke’s lawyer argues that women comprise 37.6% of assistant managers, 21.9% of co-managers, and 15.5% of store managers. The standards are the same whether it is a huge company like Walmart or a small business. So this decision could be far reaching and touch the pocketbooks of thousands of small businesses.