The Black Factor

Demand Gov. Brewer Apologize to the President!

2012-01-26T10:16:00.000-08:00

I've been so busy at work, due to being short-staffed that I haven't had time for my blog. BUT, after seeing a picture of Governor Jan Brewer wagging her finger in the President's face, I had to squeeze in time. This white woman would never have treated a white president that way. But, it plays to her conservative and tea party base and she's trying to sell books. She was supposed to be at the airport welcoming him, but chose to go for a photo-op by getting in his face and arguing with him in front of TV cameras.

It was the most disrespectful treatment I've ever seen from an elected official to a sitting president. If you are offended, do something. Call her office and demand she apologize to President Obama!!!! Her number is 602-542-4331.

Don't Trust Anyone!

2011-12-12T07:44:00.000-08:00

When it comes to dealing with abuse at work, remember that you simply can't trust ANYONE! Nobody wants to be dragged into someone's mess at work. Not even drama queens. Self-reliance will be key. You have to be a rock. You have to be your own champion. Expect the unexpected, especially when it comes to people's character. Better to be disappointed in someone's shortcomings than to be caught blind because you weren't prepared that you might be left to fend for yourself.

IN THE NEWS: The "Food Stamp President"

2011-12-07T08:40:00.000-08:00

I always follow presidential politics because it just fascinates me regarding what people will say and do to gain power. I've been called all sorts of names by friends and acquaintances for following something that they didn't think mattered to Black folks. It's like some people don't get that who is in office has everything to do with the quality of life that they are able to lead.

And, that ties in 100% with the workplace and employment. The president and congress have direct input on supreme court judge appointments (deciding class action lawsuits, health care issues, how businesses treat workers, etc.), decisions that impact how business is done, including workers rights, the length or extension of unemployment benefits, payroll tax cuts, etc.

GOP presidential hopeful, Newt Gingrich, called President Obama the finest food stamp president in history. We ere still in a recession. People of all races are needing assistance. Children are hungry. Families are struggling. And, the GOP feel comfortable announcing that they don't give a crap about the 99%, who are barely treading water. They expect people to vote against their own interests or not vote at all.

How else do you explain members of the GOP saying and defending the wild claim that poor children in housing projects never see anyone going to work and they should be used as janitors in schools? If you put a video camera out in the projects, you would see many, many poor people racing to catch trains and buses to work--sometimes to their first job. But, this is the red meat that many Republicans want to hear. They want their candidate to be a good-old boy/anti-minority. Right now the GOP is refusing to extend the payroll tax if it means the rich, the 1%, must go back to Clinton-era tax rates and pay their fair share. They are also redistricting and changing voter id requirements to increase their chances to win key state and to stop the poor and minorities from getting Obama a second term.

It matters, who becomes president. If you read this blog, then you know it matters. Start following the issues. Spread
the word to your friends and family. We have to get the vote out or WE WILL HAVE SUFFERING AND MITERY!

What are you trying to achieve?

2011-12-06T07:51:00.000-08:00

If you're fighting harassment, retaliation or discrimination at work, you have to figure out what your end game is. What are you trying to achieve with this battle you'll be engaging in? Is it just to save your job? To restore a falsely tarnished reputation? To have a member of management held accountable through training, suspension, termination or issuing an apology? You have to know you're ending in order to write a successful story. It holds true at work, as well.

Quick Tip: Form Alliances

2011-12-02T08:25:00.001-08:00

If someone is abusing you at work, you may want to consider forming alliances with their enemies to bring them down. Figure out who they've been attacking, in addtion to you, and try to determine if what you're hearing is real and credible. Analyze the enemies for ayone who seems reasonable and level-headed. Then, befriend them as much as possible. Don't announce an agenda, just build a positive relationship and see what starts to come up in conversation. Maybe, you take the first step in sharing a bit of information and see if they open up. There i strength in numbers. Someone might be afraid to speak up alone, but might be more vocal with at least one other person on board. Both of you can lean on each other against a common enemy, which might make your abuser stop and pause. Don't be introverted. Seek out alliances and friendships, when under attack.

Don't Perform!

2011-11-29T11:47:00.000-08:00

Don't let living up to your coworkers expectations dictate your behavior at work. Just because you may have a reputation for being no-nonsense, it doesn't mean you have to perform to that when dealing with management. Too many of us get caught up in "keeping it 100." Worry about doing ehe right thing...and keeping your job!

Don't Squander an Opportunity!

2011-11-28T11:42:00.000-08:00

I work with a 30 year-old African-American female who's in bad standing with management. Part of it is her doing and part is management now trying to get rid of a nuisance. I gave this woman an opportunity to work in a highly visible role to try to help us drive in some business. I put her on my team because she had the skills to do well and it would be a great way to get her to rehabilitate her image. What did she do with this opportunity?

She started the event by announcing to a member of management that she couldn't give 100% because she'd been drinking all night. #1: they could send her for a drug/alcohol test. #2: they could have sent her home without pay. #3: she could have faced other disciplinary action for saying she was at work possibly still inebriated.

She didn't fail me. She failed herself and her son.

You can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink.

Has someone given you an opportunity? What did you do with it?

Happy Holiday!

2011-11-23T11:31:00.000-08:00

I hope everyone has a blessed Thanksgiving holiday. I'll be back with posts on Monday.

False Allegations

2011-11-22T11:48:00.000-08:00

As long as you make allegations of mistreatment at work that you truly believe and think that actions and evidence support your allegations, you are making your complaint in good faith and there shouldn't be a penalty or any consequences for your allegations.

However, if you knowingly make false allegations of work place abuses you are opening yourself up for a potenaial world of harm. Making intentionally false allegations can open you up to employment actions..and rightfully so. We can't afford to protect those who make it harder for all of us, who are fighting for our employment lives. And, we can't have investigations into false allegations taking time away from investigating and resolving real issues.

We fight every day for truth and justice. Not bullsh%t!!!!

Stay True To You!

2011-11-17T07:47:00.000-08:00

As we approach the approach the holidays it seems fitting to give my yearly advice....stay true to who you are. Dealing with abuse often brings mental anguish, physical problems (e.g. headaches, insomnia, high blood pressure, etc.), and even spiritual questions, such as why would God put me through this challenge?

Your attacker(s) need you off-balance to bring you down and wear you out. It's a psychological game being played in order to get advantage.

You have to stay strong and not let them change you. Write in a journal to get your emotions out. Exercise to relieve stress. Read. Go out to dinner or a movie. Don't obssess 24/7 for your own mental and physical well-being.

Smile. Laugh. Love.

You can fight back and fight to stay a healthy and whole individual.

God bless!

Crabs in Barrel!

2011-11-14T11:44:00.000-08:00

There's a stereotype that Black people behave like crabs in a barrel, trying to pull each other down. That came to mind, when a good friend told me about how the Black and Hispanic workers in her office made false alegtions about her and the Hispanic man, who run the facility.

She'd been complaining to me for months about the poor work ethic and bad attitudes of many of the staff and that, despite coaching and counseling, the behavior and lack of accountability persisted. These workers turned around and called in the union to make claims of feeling physically threatened and of unfair demands on how much work should be done.

What's funny is the actual workers in the group, who've been picking up their slack, have already come out in defense of the bosses and in condemning those making complaints that are unfounded. The stories of the complainants have started falling apart under union questioning. The baselessness is becoming clear.

I always say, "Just do your job and go home." Why people have energy to make false complaints, which hurt those who come forward with REAL issues of abuse that should be taken seriousy, can do all that but not their jobs is beyond me. Do your job and leave.

Someone hatched the plan and egged everyone on and then a large group became involved in trying to pull down their own. It's sad and pathetic. In the end, they will probably do more to harm themselves since their work output is going to be evaluated and compared to other offices. If you are doing two interviews with claimants in 8 hours and someone else is doing 10 - 14 in the same time, THE PROBLEM IS YOU. Don't complain, when asked to do more.

And don't try to pull good people down like a crab. False allegations hurt more people than you think. I hope they are all exposed and outed as the low lifes that they are.

Abuse Must Be Reported

2011-11-08T07:19:00.000-08:00

If you report workplace abuse to any authority figure at work, they are obligated to report it. Even if you mention discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation (you don't have to use those actual names) to an authority figure in another department or unit, they are still required to report your complaint to higher-ups.

It doesn't matter if you ask the person to keep what you've said a secret for fear of retaliation. They can't keep workplace abuse allegations private. They are in authority and are paid a higher salary to do the right thing and deal with sensitive issues. They don't get to pick and choose, when they're in charge.

If someone goes to an authority figure, it's a cry for help. Reporting it is step one because doing otherwise is the first part of covering up wrongdoing. You shouldn't ignore signs a person might commit suicide and you shouldn't ignore signs that someone at work is being mistreated or abused and someone else might be breaking the law.

Don't Talk!

2011-11-03T14:34:00.000-07:00

Anytime you face issues at work, you have to stop yourself from running off at the mouth. Coworkers stand to gain a lot from revealing what you've said and even if they're not in it to get an under-handed promotion, they still might reveal your plans and cost you your job.

An employer might have decided they screwed with you enough and will dial things back a bit because they feel in control of the situation and in control of you. But, finding out you're planning to find a lawyer or to file an external complaint may push their hand towards termination.

It doesn't mean you can't continue with a complaint and may end up proving your point about mistreatment, but it sure doesn't keep the checks coming in!

Don't let someone force your hand and force you out of work. Employers are capable enough at that game without outside--or inside--interference.

Start Dusting Off That Resume

2011-11-02T05:33:00.000-07:00

So, we're getting late in the year, which means folks are starting to think about the new year and getting a new job. Yeah, it's still a tough economy and the job market is competitive, but folks are still hiring. I know a few people who've gotten jobs--management jobs--in the last couple of weeks.

Take a look at your resume and make sure it's up-to-date and captures your skills and accomplishments. Show it to a friend and get feedback. Keep it simple--don't send out 4 pagers. Edit!

Tailor your cover letter to the company you're applying to and follow-up. If you get an interview, be on time. Ask questions. Know facts about the company and postion you're applying for. Be positive and smile, but don't be phony.

If you have a talent, start making a plan on how you can make a profit and, eventually work for yourself!!!

Talk About Asking For It!

2011-10-31T11:24:00.000-07:00

If you know you've been performing below standards but management doesn't have enough to fire you, why would you engage in behavior that dances on the fine line between remaining employed--in a bad economy-and getting fired?

A Black coworker did just that and is now crying to get her job back and has to argue wrongful termination. But, all she had to do is come to work and do her job and go home. What she did was butt into another coworker's busness and pull a "prank" on another coworker. They'd been arguing and she took sides. That prank was all the bosses needed to show her the door.

Yes, they exaggerated the situation and they know it. But, she touched company property and that sounds egregious and reads that way on paper. Plus, she's been denied unemployment!!!

Was it worth it? No! But, some of us can't help falling into traps or making our own. Please remain focused, if you know you are a target and worry about yourself. Force your employer to go out of their way to do you harm, which could help you prove mistreatment or a hostile work environment. Don't walk around with a bad attitude. Fake it. Leave on your own terms and stop giving management ammunition. Be smart. Think before you do anything. Ask yourself, "does this help me or hurt me?"

Will return to blog next week!

2011-10-26T21:13:00.000-07:00

Life sometimes gets in the way of what we're doing. I definitely don't want this blog to die. I'll be back. New posts on Monday. You won't believe what's been going on at work! Stay tuned.

Document Warnings About Potential Problems with Work Assignments--CYA!!

2011-07-29T10:46:00.000-07:00

If you haven’t learned this lesson already, learn it fast. EVERY TIME you inform a White coworker or manager (or anyone else for that matter) that there is a fundamental problem with an assignment or project, document what your misgivings are, who you reported any potential problems to/what your specific concerns are, and what that person’s response was. Do this without exception! It does not matter whether or not you have raised concerns about your personal work or a group assignment. You need to get in the habit of documenting issues that may potentially be blamed on you or a group of staff, at a later time.

Point blank…many managers and coworkers WILL NOT take full responsibility for the work being done by their staff or within their unit—when things go wrong! When things go right, they will scream from the mountain tops that it was their bold leadership, oversight, judgments, and execution that lead to success. When things go wrong, someone’s head must roll and they will do everything in their power to ensure that it is not their head!

I used to have a screen saver on my computer that always caused managers to frown. It read (and you’ve probably heard this before):

DO NOT EMPOWER ME SIMPLY BECAUSE THINGS WENT WRONG!

I have argued this, many times, when I have been blamed for a problem that was caused by decisions made by task leaders or project directors. For instance, I worked with a White manager that inundated junior-level staff (all Black) with petty changes to procedures on an assignment that did not enrich the quality of the work. Instead, the non-client requested changes bogged us down. The client wanted a quick turnaround time. We could finish the work quickly, so long as we didn’t have to add the petty steps being requested by the manager. When staff tried to warn this manager that his changes would slow us down to the point where we would probably miss the deadline, he didn’t want to hear it. What really sucked was that he was requesting pretty cosmetic and petty changes that didn’t impact the work being provided to the client, but were time consuming, even though it didn’t appear that they would be. We tried to explain to him why what seemed like minor changes, wouldn’t happen as quickly as he thought. He insisted we do the work as he specified.

The deadline was missed. So, the manager argued to his supervisor (after a client complaint) that we were slow, did not respect and could not adhere to deadlines, and that we were unfocused. He essentially made us sound lazy, which we know is a stereotype. And, he said things like, “I thought I could trust all of you to be professional enough to get this done, without me breathing down your necks.” Trust? We couldn’t be “trusted”? That was a character attack and an attack on our professionalism.

But, the problem wasn’t that we were “untrustworthy.” The problem was that he insinuated himself into our procedures, simply so that he could put his “signature” on the way the assignment was completed. He imagined the client’s jubilation with his petty revisions. But, we warned him that the deadline would likely be missed. Yet, he insisted that the work be done in his special way. When it blew up in his face, his changes were somehow not the root cause for the problem. The group I was working with was accustomed to successfully working on quick turnaround schedules, but somehow we were suddenly incompetent, lazy, and need micromanaging.

Unfortunately, we didn’t document in writing that we were told to add procedures and make cosmetic changes. And, this manager didn’t provide us anything in writing. He just did his usual number of racing into our work space, hyperventilating, and barking orders. We were in such a rush to try to get everything done, we made the mistake of not covering our as*es.

The manager insisted that we “misunderstood” him. He didn’t want all of those petty changes. Those were things that he wanted to “roundtable” and discuss as changes for future assignments. The fact that we “misunderstood” him was the problem. Yes, four individuals “misunderstood” the same information in the very same manner. And, we were chastised by management for not being serious about our jobs, not stating that a deadline could be missed (which we did), and for not respecting our clients. All that from one as*hole lying about reality!!

From that point on, I made it a point to…

ALWAYS PUT REQUESTED CHANGES AND WARNINGS IN WRITING--even when they come from a supervisor or manager. Keep a paper trail. Write something as simple as, "Hi [name]! As you requested, we will be changing our procedures to [name revisions]. However, I am still concerned about [warning]. We will follow your advice to [response to warning]."

Had we simply sent him an email stating the date and time of his revisions to our procedures and included a list of the changes, AND our concerns about meeting the deadline…it would have been impossible for him to argue that he was not aware that he was jeopardizing a deadline and causing us unnecessary work. You live and learn.

Learn the lesson that others have learned the hard way. If you warn someone that “x” will lead to “y”, PUT IT IN WRITING!

LEGAL BRIEF: Great Lakes Chemical Corporation Settles EEOC Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

2011-07-28T10:31:00.000-07:00

Manufacturer Unlawfully Terminated Black Employees, Federal Agency Charges

EL DORADO, Ark. – Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, a manufacturer and seller of chemical products in El Dorado, Ark., will pay $80,000 and furnish other relief to settle a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging racial discrimination, the agency announced on July 12th.

The EEOC’s suit (Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-01042) alleged that Great Lakes violated federal anti-discrimination law when it terminated several black employees because of their race. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that Great Lakes terminated black employees based upon discriminatory and subjective evaluations.

Race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

"The EEOC remains committed to promoting equality of opportunity in the workplace for members of all races. We believe the decree entered by the Court will ensure that African American employees are not singled out for discriminatory treatment,"said Regional Attorney Faye A. Williams of the EEOC's Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee, and certain counties in Mississippi.

In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree settling the suit enjoins Great Lakes from terminating employees in its El Dorado central location’s Inorganic Bromine (IOB) Unit on the basis of race. Great Lakes will also provide race and color discrimination training to all supervisory and management personnel in its IOB Unit and post a notice reinforcing the company’s policies on Title VII.

According to its website, Great Lakes is a business of Chemtura Corporation, a global specialty chemicals company. It is one of the three largest developers and manufacturers of bromine and bromine-based products.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-12-11.cfm

The Zoo Syndrome

2011-07-27T10:41:00.000-07:00

QUESTION: What happens when a Black employee shuts their office door for a prolonged period of time?

ANSWER: Some White staff will begin to openly wonder what the Black employee is doing behind that closed door. And, unfortunately, many White staff will also begin to offer up unsolicited comments about what they think is happening. So, you’ll hear everything from “I’ll bet she’s on a personal phone call” to “She’s probably shopping on the Internet” to “She’s just goofing off.”

I call it the “The Zoo Syndrome.” White employees, who have The Zoo Syndrome, like to be able to walk by a Black person’s office or cubicle and have the ability to inspect what’s going on inside. It’s just like going to the zoo to see what the animals are doing inside the different exhibits. And, just like at the zoo, some White people get pissed when the “exhibits” are closed.

For some strange reason, a Black person working behind closed doors seems to inspire a fair amount of negativity from White staff. It’s not uncommon for a Black employee, who dares to shut their office door, to be told that they are perceived to be “inaccessible,” “closed off,” or “non-managerial.”

But, when a White person shuts their office door for an extended period of time, have you ever noticed that the conspiracy theories suddenly disappear and positive insinuations are all that can be heard? As a result, a White person working behind a closed door is “probably working on a deadline” or is “probably on a conference call” or they are perceived to be “busy and focused.”

I’ve been amazed, over the years, at how often the open or closed position of a Black worker’s door could inspire so much petty commentary from White staff. But, it’s really not surprising. Blacks in the workplace are often victimized by negative inferences being drawn from normally accepted company-wide behaviors and practices. As a result, three White staff in one room are “having a meeting” and three Black staff in one room are “having a party.”

In the workplace, the on-the-job racist will leave no stone unturned in their effort to paint a Black worker as having some sort of professional deficiencies. As a result, many Blacks are forced to deal with some of the most petty, mean-spirited, and career-stifling nonsense imaginable. So, petty issues, such as doors being occasionally closed, can often become fodder for discussion on a Black person’s year-end performance evaluation, but the same situation will never be mentioned to a White employee.

We live in a society full of race-based double-standards. The workplace is no exception.

LEGAL BRIEF: Jackson Park Hospital Sued By EEOC For Race Discrimination And Retaliation

2011-07-26T10:27:00.000-07:00

Federal Agency Charged Black Female Employees Were Segregated in Job Assignments

CHICAGO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a class race discrimination lawsuit in federal district court here on July 14th against Jackson Park Hospital and Medical Center. The EEOC charged that the hospital, on Chicago’s South Side, subjected a class of black female employees to different terms and conditions of employment and segregation in job assignments because of their race. The suit also alleged that at least one of the women was demoted in retaliation for opposing and complaining about unlawful employment practices.

John Rowe, the director of the EEOC’s Chicago District, said the agency’s administrative investigation revealed that numerous black female medical technicians at Jackson Park appear to have been required to perform assignments that their male counterparts who were not black were allegedly not required to perform.

Race discrimination and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit, EEOC v Jackson Park Hospital and Medical Center, N.D. Ill., No. 11 C 04743, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The suit has been assigned to District Judge Milton Shadur and Magistrate Judge Gilbert. The EEOC’s litigation of the case will be led by Trial Attorney June Wallace Calhoun and Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason.

“There’s a word for assigning work on the basis of race,” said Rowe. “It’s segregation—and it has long been prohibited by federal law.”

EEOC Chicago District Regional Attorney John Hendrickson added, “This case appears to be one of an increasing number which involve retaliation. That’s something we are always on the watch for and always want to challenge. Retaliation damages everyone—individuals, employers, and the public interest—so we are not inclined to let it slide.”

The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-14-11a.cfm

I'm Back!

2011-07-25T12:39:00.000-07:00

Technology has been rebelling against me. I was without a cell phone, laptop, and my cable box(es) went crazy for over a week! I've got it together now. New posts starting tomorrow. Thanks for your understanding.

2011-06-30T10:47:00.001-07:00

Some managers, who engage in abusive behavior, often thrive after allegations are made. While an investigation is going on they shouldn't be rewarded at work.

2011-06-30T10:44:00.001-07:00

Keep track of any promotions or added benefits given to your harasser as a means of showing their behavior has been condoned & tolerated by your employer!

2011-06-29T10:10:00.001-07:00

Quick Tip: If a coworker or supervisor verbally abuses you, conceal a recorder & tape it. It may not be admissible in court, but can prove a point at work.

2011-06-27T08:09:00.001-07:00

Own your own experience at work. Don't let an instigator talk up drama & get you to dislike others. Those people need a bandwagon of followers. Don't join in!

2011-06-27T08:06:00.001-07:00

If someone has an issue with a shared supervisor, it's got nothing to do with you. Don't start talking about the person because a coworker has an axe to grind.

2011-06-27T08:05:00.001-07:00

Don't fall in with unhappy mobs at work by taking on other people's baggage! Don't be a pawn, who escalates an issue on behalf of other disgruntled workers!!

2011-06-24T04:28:00.001-07:00

Your work ethic is your signature on life. Do a good job just for the sake of a job well done.

2011-06-24T04:27:00.001-07:00

Why get involved in all sorts of intrigue in order to avoid doing work, when you can just do your job & leave in peace? Decide what kind of existence you want!

2011-06-24T04:26:00.001-07:00

I'm seeing it time & time again at my job--young black workers setting themselves up for attention by management by thinking they're slick & can run game.

2011-06-21T10:15:00.001-07:00

When you're targeted at work you have to be a pack rat. Don't throw anything out because you might need it later for internal and/or external examination.

2011-06-21T10:14:00.001-07:00

Emails, memos, transcripts of phone conversations & actual saved messages, instructions, offensive drawings, organization or promotion charts can all be useful.

2011-06-21T10:12:00.001-07:00

An oldie but goodie reminder: Document Everything!! If you think you're being targeted, keep a paper trail of evidence in the event you have to prove it!

2011-06-17T11:49:00.001-07:00

On a mini-vacation. New post on Monday. Have a great weekend!

2011-06-15T11:44:00.001-07:00

Make your own decision about battling for a dead-end job. Is the cost worth the benefit?

2011-06-15T11:43:00.001-07:00

If you were already thinking or planning to leave a job before being attacked, leaving as quickly as possible is a viable solution. Only you can decide!

2011-06-15T11:42:00.001-07:00

I always say leave a job on your own terms, but the good fight got me saddled with high blood pressure & has done worse to others. Really evaluate your career!

2011-06-15T11:41:00.001-07:00

No one should be forced out of their job. But, when under attack you have to ask, "Is this job worth fighting for over the long haul?"

2011-06-08T08:54:00.001-07:00

Always keep a list of witnesses, but don't just rely on that to prove your facts!

2011-06-08T08:53:00.001-07:00

You may not be able to count on witnesses to speak up. Saying "I don't know" or "I didn't hear that" is an easy way to avoid joining someone as a target.

2011-06-08T08:51:00.001-07:00

Figure out what evidence you have that doesn't require witness corroboration, like memos, emails or offensive items left in your office or on a locker.

2011-06-08T08:49:00.001-07:00

Always assume that you may not get the witness support you need, when claiming race-related abuse at work. Speaking honestly can destroy careers!

2011-06-07T09:53:00.001-07:00

My advice for the day is to not be reactionary, but to be thoughtful under attack. The consequences for lashing out could makes things worse than they are now.

2011-06-07T09:51:00.001-07:00

You have to think about your actions, when you feel targeted. Be strategic! Pause before speaking! Plan your next steps! Being defiant isn't a course of action!

2011-06-07T09:47:00.001-07:00

It's fine to be a strong person, but it makes no sense to be a stupid person. Even having issues at work, you don't dig a grave & pull the dirt in on yourself!

FYI Friday: Genetic Information Discrimination

2011-06-03T07:07:00.000-07:00

When I first read this, I wasn't sure whether to post this information. But, as it states, employees requesting FMLA are often required to provide health documentation/certification. Who knows what some employers will do with information they become aware of, including negative personnel actions against that employee. I thought this was a good FYI:

Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits genetic information discrimination in employment, took effect on November 21, 2009.

Under Title II of GINA, it is illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information. Title II of GINA prohibits the use of genetic information in making employment decisions, restricts employers and other entities covered by Title II (employment agencies, labor organizations and joint labor-management training and apprenticeship programs - referred to as "covered entities") from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information, and strictly limits the disclosure of genetic information.

The EEOC enforces Title II of GINA (dealing with genetic discrimination in employment). The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and the Treasury have responsibility for issuing regulations for Title I of GINA, which addresses the use of genetic information in health insurance.

Definition of “Genetic Information”

Genetic information includes information about an individual’s genetic tests and the genetic tests of an individual’s family members, as well as information about the manifestation of a disease or disorder in an individual’s family members (i.e. family medical history). Family medical history is included in the definition of genetic information because it is often used to determine whether someone has an increased risk of getting a disease, disorder, or condition in the future. Genetic information also includes an individual's request for, or receipt of, genetic services, or the participation in clinical research that includes genetic services by the individual or a family member of the individual, and the genetic information of a fetus carried by an individual or by a pregnant woman who is a family member of the individual and the genetic information of any embryo legally held by the individual or family member using an assisted reproductive technology.

Discrimination Because of Genetic Information

The law forbids discrimination on the basis of genetic information when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoffs, training, fringe benefits, or any other term or condition of employment. An employer may never use genetic information to make an employment decision because genetic information is not relevant to an individual's current ability to work.

Harassment Because of Genetic Information

Under GINA, it is also illegal to harass a person because of his or her genetic information. Harassment can include, for example, making offensive or derogatory remarks about an applicant or employee’s genetic information, or about the genetic information of a relative of the applicant or employee. Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so severe or pervasive that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted). The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area of the workplace, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee, such as a client or customer.

Retaliation

Under GINA, it is illegal to fire, demote, harass, or otherwise “retaliate” against an applicant or employee for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding (such as a discrimination investigation or lawsuit), or otherwise opposing discrimination.

Rules Against Acquiring Genetic Information

It will usually be unlawful for a covered entity to get genetic information. There are six narrow exceptions to this prohibition:

•Inadvertent acquisitions of genetic information do not violate GINA, such as in situations where a manager or supervisor overhears someone talking about a family member’s illness.

•Genetic information (such as family medical history) may be obtained as part of health or genetic services, including wellness programs, offered by the employer on a voluntary basis, if certain specific requirements are met.

•Family medical history may be acquired as part of the certification process for FMLA leave (or leave under similar state or local laws or pursuant to an employer policy), where an employee is asking for leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition.

•Genetic information may be acquired through commercially and publicly available documents like newspapers, as long as the employer is not searching those sources with the intent of finding genetic information or accessing sources from which they are likely to acquire genetic information (such as websites and on-line discussion groups that focus on issues such as genetic testing of individuals and genetic discrimination).

•Genetic information may be acquired through a genetic monitoring program that monitors the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace where the monitoring is required by law or, under carefully defined conditions, where the program is voluntary.

•Acquisition of genetic information of employees by employers who engage in DNA testing for law enforcement purposes as a forensic lab or for purposes of human remains identification is permitted, but the genetic information may only be used for analysis of DNA markers for quality control to detect sample contamination.

Confidentiality of Genetic Information

It is also unlawful for a covered entity to disclose genetic information about applicants, employees or members. Covered entities must keep genetic information confidential and in a separate medical file. (Genetic information may be kept in the same file as other medical information in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.) There are limited exceptions to this non-disclosure rule, such as exceptions that provide for the disclosure of relevant genetic information to government officials investigating compliance with Title II of GINA and for disclosures made pursuant to a court order.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/genetic.cfm

Do You Know What's Expected of You at Work?

2011-06-02T06:52:00.000-07:00

Believe it or not, there are people working--of all shapes and stripes--who are working without benefit of having ever seen or been given a copy of their job description. Some people are hired, someone takes them to a sales floor or to an office and they tell them to do this, that, and the third.

But, there are all sorts of nuances to jobs and there may be things that you are expected to do that nobody may have shared with you. You are literally at the mercy of the person training you. If they are about to leave the company, especially not on good terms, or if they are relatively new to the job or if they were not trained well or if they don't give a rat's behind about performance and expectations (read: they are a slacker), you may not be receiving or you may not have received the training you deserve. More importantly, you may not know the full picture of what is expected of you by a supervisor/employer.

On top of that, without knowing expectations, it's hard to move up. How do you know when you are exceeding the requirements of your job to determine promotion opportunities and whether or not you are qualified? Knowing the expectations of your job has a direct correlation to the potential amount of money you can put in your pockets through advancement. So, here's the tip for promotions:

Find out all of the standards that your work and behaviors will be compared against and make sure you meet and/or exceed those levels! Ask to see your job description, if you don't have one. If the company doesn't have a description prepared, this happens more than you may realize, you could even volunteer to draft a description. This will show initiative and that you take your job seriously.

Additionally, you should keep performance logs to track how you’ve met and exceeded job expectations. Keep all thank you emails and letters from clients and coworkers that demonstrate that you’ve done a great job on an assignment. Share these emails with your supervisor/manager throughout the year, so they are aware that you are consistently doing a great job—and that you should be considered for a reward (bonus, raise, promotion).

LEGAL BRIEF: African-American Female Buyer Held to Unequal Standard, Federal Agency Charges

2011-06-01T06:41:00.000-07:00

Longs Drugs Settles EEOC Race, Gender Discrimination and Retaliation Suit

SAN FRANCISCO — A major pharmacy chain has agreed to pay $55,000 and to implement preventive training to settle a federal lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging race and gender discrimination and retaliation, the agency announced yesterday. The EEOC had sued on behalf of an African-American female buyer who had been employed at Longs Drugs, which was later bought by CVS Caremark.

The EEOC’s suit asserted that Marcia Guaman was treated by Longs Drugs very differently from colleagues who were not black or female. For example, Guaman received verbal and written warnings for her performance numbers, while white female co-workers with lower scores did not face any disciplinary action. Also, Guaman’s requests for vacation days were denied, even though she asked prior to white co-workers who were granted vacation for the same dates, according to the EEOC. She was discharged from her position a few months after she raised the differential treatment to human resources.

Race and sex discrimination, and retaliation against workers who speak out against such treatment, violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through conciliation, the EEOC filed suit (Civ 3:10-CV-04384-RS in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) against Longs Drugs and CVS Caremark, which is liable as Longs’ successor.

Both companies denied any wrongdoing. According to the terms of the consent decree settling the suit, CVS agreed to pay $55,000 to Guaman and will change its policies to clarify employee protections against discrimination and implement training designed to prevent future retaliation or discrimination.

“Employers should guard against bias creeping in to distort company policies, and training staff is an important preventive measure,” said EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo.

EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado said, “A major American employer like CVS Caremark has major responsibilities to a great many people, and needs to put extra effort into obeying anti-discrimination laws and maintaining a fair workplace.”

According to its website, www.cvscaremark.com, Woonsocket, R.I.-based CVS Caremark and Longs Drugs operate more than 7,000 retail pharmacy stores in 43 states. CVS Caremark, a corporation established in 1963, is the second-largest pharmacy chain in the United States.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-31-11a.cfm

2011-05-30T07:40:00.001-07:00

Don't assume your manager and/or supervisor is aware of all the ways you've contributed to the company. If a client/customer gives you a compliment, pass it on!

2011-05-30T07:39:00.001-07:00

Keep track of your accomplishments throughout the year and make sure to tell your manager about achievements as they happen. Get credit for everything you do!

Do What You Gotta Do and Go Home!

2011-05-26T06:32:00.000-07:00

As I watch the work effort, or lack thereof, of some of the associates working at my job, I can't help but ask myself why they don't just do what they gotta do and go home?

I don't know why any person with free choice would choose to take a route through life, work, dating, etc. that would make their life more difficult and filled with more drama. Unless this person needs to be evaluated by a professional (read: psychiatrist), it just doesn't make sense to continually walk yourself into a bad place.

How many times does anyone need to be asked to do their job and to do it correctly? I've started asking associates the question, "How is what you're doing helping us meet our goals today?" And, nearly every time they look at me, blink a few times, and fail to answer. They will eventually say something like, "Wow, you really put me on the spot!" or "I guess I'm not doing anything," or "I don't know how to answer that."

That's the point!

If you have no justification for doing what you are doing, when it goes against what is expected of you at work, then you are providing both the ammunition and the gun to your supervisor and employer and you should not claim that you are a target of someone's personal vendetta.

Just do what you were hired to do and go home. If you are doing the right thing and someone comes after you, it's a whole lot easier to try to prove you've been wrongly targeted for racial or other reasons, then if you are a low performer still being targeted for those same reasons.

Don't give a racist in your workplace a legitimate reason to come after you. Keep some of your power and control what you can!

2011-05-16T05:55:00.001-07:00

Not all criticism at work is unwarranted or race-related. We have to be careful about making false accusations because we harm real cases of racial abuse.

2011-05-16T05:48:00.001-07:00

If you have been given the tools you need to succeed with a task at work & you don't & you get called out for it, maybe the criticism is legitimate!

2011-05-16T05:46:00.001-07:00

As hard as it may be to hear, you can't blame managers for problems that you've caused unless you were given bad instructions or were undermined in some way.

2011-05-10T07:01:00.001-07:00

There are times when people create their own problems at work by using poor judgment & not being able to control their actions. If you work, you aren't a baby!!

2011-05-10T06:59:00.003-07:00

I had to pull an employee aside for having long conversations with cowokers & he escalated the situation by being dismissive & using slurs. He is being fired.

2011-05-10T06:59:00.001-07:00

You have to decide how you will respond to coaching from managers. You should be treated with respect, but can't do what you want when you want & how you want.

LEGAL BRIEF: "Old N*%...Hurry Up and Die!"

2011-04-29T09:15:00.000-07:00

Ganley Lincoln of Bedford Settles EEOC Racial Harassment Suit for $300,000

Former General Manager Jay Walsh Regularly Insulted and Mistreated African-Americans, Federal Agency Charges

CLEVELAND – Ganley Lincoln of Bedford, Inc., an auto dealership in Bedford, Ohio, will pay $300,000 to four African-Americans to settle a racial harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on April 20th.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that Jay Walsh, Ganley’s general manager at the time, routinely used derogatory terms to refer to blacks, customers as well as employees, including the epithet “n----r.” Walsh, in referring to an older African-American employee, wished the “old n----r ... would hurry up and die.” Further, the agency charged, Walsh utilized a compensation system that disadvantaged black salespeople with regard to sales opportunities and commissions.

Racial discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit, No. 1:07cv2829, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to the monetary relief, the two-year consent decree settling the suit provides for training on employee rights and employer obligations under Title VII, as well as supervisor accountability with regard to racial discrimination. The decree also requires Ganley to post a notice to employees about the lawsuit that provides the EEOC’s contact information.

“Racial harassment is utterly unacceptable and illegal,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence. “It demeans the entire workplace as well as the direct victims. This settlement – both the monetary relief and the training -- will help ensure that African-Americans at this company will never have to face such abuse again.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-20-11c.cfm

It Can Be Stopped!

2011-04-28T09:27:00.000-07:00

If you are the victim of racially-based or other harassment at work, your employer’s hands are not tied regarding effectively handling the situation in a manner that is likely to prevent your mistreatment from occurring again. Your employer has many options available to deter and stop harassment, regardless of the impression that those in authority (supervisors, Human Resources staff, etc.) may provide you.

When it comes to claims of racially-based harassment, companies do not like to respond—even though providing an adequate response to illegal behavior is in their best interest. Instead of squashing the careers of those who would harass a coworker or subordinate, many companies go into denial mode, which they believe offers some form of protection. In other words, if they didn’t know or “believe” that harassment was taking place, companies fool themselves into believing they are not legally liable for any damage that may have occurred to an employee’s career. But, deniability doesn’t automatically hold up under the law.

A company is legally responsible for preventing and stopping harassment from occurring. If you believe you are the victim of harassment (including retaliation and experiencing a hostile work environment), you should document everything that is occurring. You must show proof as to why your company must take action.

What can your employer do (or should be doing) to your harasser? Here are some options offered by EEOC regarding harassment in the workplace:

-- oral or writing warnings/reprimands
-- transfer or reassignment
-- demotion
-- salary cut
-- suspension
-- termination
-- training or counseling of harasser
-- monitoring the harasser to ensure that harassment stops
Source: www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassmetn.html

As you can see there are light and hard-hitting remedies available. It’s your job to know that these options are available to deal with harassment and to suggest some stringent form of punishment is doled out to your abuser. But, you have to prove your case or your company will sleepwalk through your entire ordeal. Document mistreatment, provide the names of witnesses who can verify your accounts and save harassing email and voicemail as proof that your abuser has gone overboard. Then, demand action is taken.

NOTE: Your employer cannot force you to transfer to another department to avoid your harasser. But, you can volunteer to move to another department if it is in the best interest of your career and/or mental health.

LEGAL BRIEF: Ralph Jones Sheet Metal Settles EEOC Racial Harassment Suit for $160,000

2011-04-27T09:11:00.000-07:00

White Supervisor Routinely Insulted and Demeaned African-Americans, Federal Agency Charges

MEMPHIS, Tenn. – Ralph Jones Sheet Metal, Inc., an architectural sheet metal company located in Memphis, will pay $160,000 to former African-American employees to settle a racial harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on April 22nd.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that a white supervisor and other employees subjected African-American employees to racially offensive comments. The EEOC charged that the supervisor regularly referred to African-American employees with the epithet “n----r” and used other slurs. In addition, the EEOC charged that racial graffiti was on display in common areas and on company equipment.

Race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit, No. 2:09-cv-02636, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, after first attempting to settle the matter through its conciliation process.

In addition to monetary relief, the 18-month consent decree settling the lawsuit provides for training on employee rights under Title VII, and requires Ralph Jones Sheet Metal to maintain records of racial harassment complaints, provide annual reports to the EEOC, and post a notice to employees about the lawsuit that includes the EEOC’s contact information.

“Employees should not have to endure a racially hostile work environment as it is a violation of federal law,” said Faye Williams, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Memphis District Office. “It is appalling that racial harassment and the use of racial slurs remain so pervasive in today’s workplace. The EEOC will continue to forcefully fight against this misconduct.”

According to company information, Ralph Jones Sheet Metal fabricates and installs architectural panels made from aluminum composite, copper and stainless steel.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-22-11.cfm

2011-04-25T08:24:00.001-07:00

Your behavior, after abuse, can be used against you to justify what's happened already. So don't act out & give a pretext or just cause to target you.

2011-04-25T08:21:00.001-07:00

Don't perform at work! It's one thing to be upset, but it's another to be loud or vulgar because your emotions are running high. Always pause before speaking!

2011-04-21T12:34:00.001-07:00

Be careful of the advice you take from coworkers. Not everyone has the good sense the Lord gave them & some are just mean & hateful. You live with the outcome!

You Got Me Twisted!

2011-04-14T12:30:00.000-07:00

One of the things you have to be mindful of, if you are experiencing racially based discrimiation, harassment or retaliation, is that you might find yourself dealing with false accusations because your words have been twisted.

If a manager or employer, as a whole, is targeting you, there aren't many stones that they are willing to leave unturned in an effort to prove that you are at fault for whatever treatment you have received and to justify that treatment as a reasonable and appropriate response to what you've allegedly done.

The best thing you can do for yourself is to pause before you answer any questions and think carefully about what you say, if you participate in any meetings to discuss what's going on. You also have to be careful with what you say to coworkers because you never know who might take advantage of your situation.

Your words can be manipulated into all sorts of meanings, including possibly turning your words into threats.

I have a current coworker who says that an associate threatened her with physical violence. The associate said, "I got something for you. I'm going to talk to ____ (store manager)." The associate he said this to repeated everything except that he meant he was going to report her. Luckily, another coworker heard the exchange and could attest to the fact that he meant he was going to management, not that he was going to hit her, beat her down, call his sister to wait for her after work, etc. as was being alleged.

You just never know what real words will be twisted or better yet which words will be totally made up.

But, as I always say, don't give anyone ammunition to use against you. Stay away from profanity, don't make any statements that can be construed as a possible threat, don't threaten a lawsuit or outside intervention (just do it, if you're going to do it), don't talk about job searches, don't talk about the details of what's going on with your abuse at work because the walls talk, and just watch your back.

There are people who will help sabatoge you and who will help you out the door, if they feel there's something they can gain.

Think carefully about what you say and try to keep your emotions in check because that is when you are more likely to make a comment that you'll regret later!

LEGAL BRIEF: Targeted for Filing a Previous Complaint

2011-04-06T08:00:00.000-07:00

The person in this Legal Brief filed an initial complaint of age discrimiation and then was denied a salary increase that was given to every other person of the same job classification. The purpose of this post is to remind everyone that if you have filed a complaint of any kind (age, retaliation, discrimination, gender bias, etc.), it is a violated of federal statutes to be targeted or treated differently than similarly situated/classified employees. Being treated differently could be construed as retaliation because you filed an earlier complaint. So age, in this case, can be substituted for race, color, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brooks County, Texas Sued by EEOC for Retaliation: Secretary in Treasurer’s Office Punished for Previous Age Bias Suit, Federal Agency Charges

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas – Brooks County, Texas violated federal law by retaliating against a secretary in the treasurer’s office because she had filed an age discrimination charge and lawsuit two years ago, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed On March 31st.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Brooks County refused to give a salary increase to the secretary in the treasurer’s office despite all other secretaries in county offices receiving higher salaries. Brooks County explained to the EEOC that the secretary in question was at the “maximum salary set for her job position” and “the maximum salaries for all secretarial/clerical job positions within Brooks County have remained the same for the last four budget years and no employees have received salaries in excess of the budget amounts.”

However, when Brooks County provided salary information, it became evident that every single person on its list of similarly situated employees had received salary raises or were hired at higher salaries. The EEOC also said that when the secretary was facing the elimination of her job, Brooks County failed to hire her in an open position in the county library because of her pending second EEOC charge.

The EEOC contends that the county was actually punishing the secretary for filing an age discrimination charge and then lawsuit against the county in 2009. At that time she was an assistant auditor in the county auditor's office and she identified her boss as the perpetrator of age discrimination. Later that same auditor was the main gatekeeper on all of the requests for higher secretarial salaries.

Retaliating against people who oppose what they believe to be discriminatory conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division (EEOC V. Brooks County, Texas, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00086) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay and liquidated damages, front pay and injunctive relief.

“We have observed an increase in retaliation claims at the EEOC,” said Judith G. Taylor, supervisory trial attorney for the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office, which is handling this case. “In fact, retaliation now accounts for the most numerous kind of discrimination charge. Employers cannot ignore the fact that employees have a guaranteed right to voice opposition to any violation of the ADEA without fear of repercussion. Punishing employees who exercise their right to report discrimination is a violation of federal law and will be rigorously enforced by the EEOC.”

Pat Connor, trial attorney for the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office, aid, “Even a small county employer must follow the law. The EEOC will continue to defend federally protected rights of all employees, public and private, large and small.”

In fiscal year 2010, the EEOC received 36,258 charges of retaliation, accounting for 36.3 percent of all charges, making it the most numerous kind of discrimination charge. The agency also received 23,264 charges of age discrimination in that year. This was an approximate 40 percent increase over the last 10 years, and encompassed 23 percent of the nearly 100,000 discrimination charges filed in 2010 overall.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-31-11.cfm

LEGAL BRIEF: Black Worker Suffers "Devastating Mental Injuries" in Physical Attack - $1 Million Judgment

2011-04-04T20:06:00.000-07:00

When you think about some of the things many of us experience in the workplace, in regard to race-related abuses, you never expect to hear stories where the abuse became physical. In this legal brief, a Black female worker was harassed by a White coworker and this escalated into a physical assault that left her with permanent mental injuries.

I can think back to a friend/coworker having to deal with racially-based retaliation after complaining about comments from a White coworker. I remember her saying she had a bruise on her leg from this woman stepping into her as they passed each other. She said the woman was holding something hard and made sure it banged into her leg. And, my friend said it was becoming commonplace--this coworker stepping into her path so that she could bang into her. This was physical harassment!

Even though I believed her, she wouldn't make that up, I got to see it for myself, when I was walking down the stairs one day. This same woman, who was banging into my coworker, stepped into my path. She moved right into the middle of the stairs. We were either going to bang into each other or I was going to have to plaster myself to the wall to let her past. There was no way I could get past her. I remember thinking, "Oh my God! She's trying to run into me!" I literally had no way to get past her. Even if I stopped, she couldn't get by without running into me. She definitely wanted a physical confrontation because she knew I was friends with the person who outed her for racist remarks and reported it.

How did it end?

I can't tell a lie. I looked right at her and said...

"I will knock you down these stairs."

She plasted herself to the wall!

I'm glad she did because I think I would have pushed her down the stairs. I will not lie. I was preparing to put my hands on both of her shoulders and give her a good head over heels tumble down the stairs. She had been essentially assaulting my coworker and I took her actions as a direct physical threat to me. I did not take it lightly. When she came up the stairs, I was on the right heading down and she was on the left heading up. We were both using proper stairway etiquette. She looked up and saw it was me and, looking at me the whole time, stepped into the middle of the staircase. That registered as a physical threat to me.

As surprising as things like that were and still are to me, to hear about someone sustaining any type of mental injury from a physical assault is just upsetting. In the workplace? Really? This is what people do and are allowed to get away with.

Employers must do something about harassment and discrimination because if you tolerate it at all, you condone the behavior and embolden the perpetrator. That's how things can escalate, on either side. The perpetrator may attack the victim or the victim may just snap one day.

For more details on the legal brief, see below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Affirms $1 Million Judgment in EEOC Sex and Race Harassment Suit Against Whirlpool

NASHVILLE – A federal judge has affirmed a million-dollar judgment against Whirlpool Corporation in a sex and race harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the agency announced on April 1st.

Judge John T. Nixon denied Whirlpool Corporation’s motion to alter and/or amend the judgment of the court, entered on Dec. 21, 2009, that Whirlpool pay $1,073,261 in damages to the discrimination victim.

“This woman was victimized by serious, ongoing abuse, and was severely and permanently damaged as a result,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Faye Williams. “A sizeable amount of damages was called for, and we are pleased that the judge agreed.”

The EEOC’s lawsuit had charged that Benton Harbor, Mich.-based Whirlpool violated federal law when it tolerated the harassment of Carlotta Freeman, an employee at a Whirlpool plant in LaVergne, Tenn., by a white male co-worker because of her race (black) and sex. The abuse lasted for two months, the EEOC said, until the co-worker physically assaulted Freeman and inflicted serious permanent injuries.

During the four-day trial, the court heard evidence that Freeman reported escalating offensive verbal conduct and gestures by the co-worker over a period of two months before he physically assaulted her. The court heard that four levels of Whirlpool’s management were aware of the escalating harassment, but that Whirlpool failed to take effective steps to stop it. Further, Freeman suffered devastating permanent mental injuries that will prevent her from working again as a result of the assault and Whirlpool’s failure to protect her.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 3:06-0593) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. Following a bench trial, Judge Nixon awarded Freeman $773,261 in back pay and front pay, and $300,000 compensatory damages for non-pecuniary injuries.

On Jan. 15, 2010, Whirlpool requested that the court reduce the damages. The corporation claimed that the court had erred when, among other things, it awarded front and back pay without considering the fact that the plant where Freeman worked had closed. Whirlpool also claimed the court erred when it relied on certain information from Freeman’s expert witness.

In denying Whirlpool’s motion, Judge Nixon noted that it had “wide discretion to make whole the victim of unlawful discrimination.” For that reason, the court “declines to find that failing to so cut off the award of front pay to Freeman constitutes a clear error of law or manifest injustice.”

Carlota Freeman intervened in the case and was represented by Nashville attorneys Helen Rogers and Andy Allman.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-1-11.cfm

2011-04-01T09:34:00.001-07:00

If a group of employees is having an issue with a manager, instead of complaining to each other request a group meeting with the manager to discuss things.

2011-04-01T09:33:00.001-07:00

When dealing with a problem manager who is unapproachable, it's OK to go over their head & speak to their superior. Go in a group, if it's a rampant problem!

2011-03-30T11:20:00.001-07:00

After watching a manager today pestering a handful of employees and smirking when she sees people she's upset, it reminds me why I started this blog. It's sad!

2011-03-29T06:19:00.001-07:00

If it becomes harder to get class action suits heard, it's likely abuses will thrive in the workplace due to a lesser fear of forced corrective action.

2011-03-29T06:17:00.001-07:00

It's hard for an individual to fight back but when groups are impacted by discrimination it helps attract a lawyer & push the case forward--strength in numbers.

2011-03-29T06:13:00.001-07:00

Waiting for a ruling from the Supreme Court on the Wal-Mart discrimination class action suit. Businesses have argued that class action cases are abusive.

2011-03-23T05:48:00.001-07:00

We all have to think about how we conduct ourselves and what we would expect from our own employees, if positions were reversed & we were in charge.

2011-03-23T05:46:00.001-07:00

Some workers at my job have been caught stacking boxes to block cameras so they can take naps & text. Now, they want to be victims and claim extra scrutiny.

2011-03-23T05:44:00.003-07:00

You can't complain about being targeted at work and you can't cry racism if you deserve attention and criticism for your work-related behavior.

2011-03-23T05:44:00.001-07:00

You can't complain about being targeted at work and you can't cry racism if you deserve attention and criticism for your work-related behavior.

LEGAL BRIEF: Channel 25 (Oklahoma) Settles EEOC Race and Sex Bias Suit

2011-03-17T10:21:00.000-07:00

KOKH and Parent Company, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Paid Black Female Reporter Less Than Coworkers, Federal Agency Charged

OKLAHOMA CITY – KOKH-TV (Fox 25) in Oklahoma City will pay $45,000 and additional consideration to a veteran African-American TV news reporter to settle a race and sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on March 3rd. The settlement terms are set forth in a proposed Consent Decree, approval of which is pending before the Court.

The EEOC charged that Phyllis Williams’ employers, KOKH and its parent company, Sinclair Broadcast Group, paid her lower wages than comparable white female reporters and male reporters of all races, and subjected her to unequal terms and conditions of employment until August 2007, when she signed an employment contract for a higher salary. Sinclair and KOKH had routinely offered employment contracts to other reporters at Channel 25. Williams has reported for Fox 25 since 1996.

Fox Broadcasting Company, which has an affiliate agreement allowing the station to use the Fox name, did not employ Williams and was not a party to the lawsuit.

Race and sex discrimination violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (EEOC, et al. v. KOKH, et al., Case No. 5:07-cv-01043-D) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

After the EEOC filed its charges, Williams intervened in the EEOC’s suit and added a retaliation claim under a separate civil rights statute known as Section 1981, which prohibits race discrimination and retaliation for reporting the same. KOKH and Sinclair agreed to resolve her Section 1981 claim in a private settlement for consideration in addition to the $45,000 being paid to resolve the Title VII claim.

In addition to monetary payment, during the three-year term of the consent decree KOKH and Sinclair must post an anti-discrimination notice, disseminate an anti-discrimination policy, and provide live training on preventing sex and race discrimination on at least an annual basis to all KOKH employees.

“This decree will remind KOKH Channel 25, Sinclair and all news organizations to treat their employees equally as required by law, including women and people of color, who traditionally have been the victims of job discrimination,” said Barbara Seely, regional attorney of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Oklahoma. “The notice posting and training required by the consent decree will go far in educating the station’s managers on their employees’ right to work in an environment free of race and sex discrimination.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-3-11a.cfm

2011-03-16T05:14:00.001-07:00

Not work-related but R.I.P. to Nate Dogg. He could sing a hook like nobody's business Can't deny his contribution to the West Coast sound. R.I.P.

2011-03-15T11:43:00.001-07:00

All she could say in response to the question was...after 25 years? I'm a racist? She walked away in shock. I know the feeling!

2011-03-15T11:41:00.001-07:00

The woman has instigated every issue. My sister has put her in her place. So workplace logic makes my sister a racist because she stands up for herself!

2011-03-15T11:40:00.001-07:00

My sister has been the only Black person or only one of two Black people in her office for years. A non-Black woman has been screwing with her for a while now.

2011-03-15T11:37:00.003-07:00

My sister has worked in the same office for 25 years. She was pulled to the side, by the boss, and was asked...ARE YOU A RACIST?

2011-03-15T11:37:00.001-07:00

Am I a racist? Really? After 25 years you ask me if I'm a racist?

2011-03-14T10:31:00.001-07:00

Very sick dog. At the vet now. Sorry for being off the radar for a while.

LEGAL BRIEF: Don't Empower Me When Things Go Wrong!

2011-03-02T09:00:00.000-08:00

This legal brief reminded me of one of the old screen savers I customized. It had a quote I love, "Don't empower me, when things go wrong!" That's common in the workplace...people in higher positions blaming those junior to them for mistakes on projects, etc. Or someone trying to save one of their "favorites" from blame by blaming an employee that don't give a damn about. Go ahead and fire that one, as long as my guy/gal is okay!

In this legal brief, a Black electrician was fired when lighting equipment was damaged on a project. He didn't oversee the work crews, but was made responsible for it anyway.

Oh, the white supervisor and white foreman were in charge of the work crew, which was also a non-Black work crew.

Double Oh, all the Whites and non-Black workers kept their jobs. The Black electrician was the only person shown the door. For details, see below:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salem Electric Company Sued By EEOC For Race Discrimination: Company Fired Black Employee Because of His Race, EEOC Charges

WINSTON-SALEM , N.C. – A Winston-Salem, N.C. –based, family-owned and operated electric company discriminated against a black electrician when it fired him because of his race, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed on February 14th.

According to the EEOC’s suit, around Dec. 17, 2007, Salem Electric Company terminated Rodney Tonkins’ employment as a journeyman electrician, alleging that he was responsible for a crew of employees who damaged light fixtures on a light installation project. The EEOC contends in the suit that as a journeyman electrician, Tonkins did not supervise work crews and therefore was not responsible for the damaged light fixtures. Instead, according to the EEOC’s complaint, the company’s superintendent and foreman, both white, were in charge of the project and the crew workers. Neither of those individuals, nor the non-black employees who actually caused the damage to the light fixtures, was terminated.

Discrimination on the basis of race violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Winston-Salem Division (EEOC v. Salem Electric Company, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-00119), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process. In its suit, the EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Tonkins. The EEOC also seeks injunctive relief prohibiting Salem Electric from engaging in further racial discrimination.

“This case is a reminder to employers that fair and equal treatment of its employees must be applied in all phases of employment, including addressing performance concerns,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Lynette A. Barnes of the agency’s Charlotte District Office. “The EEOC will continue to vigorously protect the rights of workers who are targeted for adverse treatment based on race or other illegal factors.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-14-11.cfm

IN THE NEWS: Out of Work, Out of Luck? EEOC Examines Employers’ Treatment of Unemployed Job Applicants at Hearing

2011-03-01T09:00:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON—In a public meeting held on February 16th, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) examined the impact of employers considering only those currently employed for job vacancies.

“Throughout its 45 year history, the EEOC has identified and remedied discrimination in hiring and remains committed to ensuring job applicants are treated fairly,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “Today’s meeting gave the Commission an important opportunity to learn about the emerging practice of excluding unemployed persons from applicant pools.”

According to Helen Norton, Associate Professor at the University of Colorado School of Law, employers and staffing agencies have publicly advertised jobs in fields ranging from electronic engineers to restaurant and grocery managers to mortgage underwriters with the explicit restriction that only currently employed candidates will be considered. “Some employers may use current employment as a signal of quality job performance,” Norton testified. “But such a correlation is decidedly weak. A blanket reliance on current employment serves as a poor proxy for successful job performance.”

“The use of an individual’s current or recent unemployment status as a hiring selection device is a troubling development in the labor market,” said Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment of the National Women’s Law Center. She noted that this practice “may well act as a negative counterweight” to government efforts to get people back to work. Women, particularly older women and those in non-traditional occupations, are disproportionately affected by this restriction, testified Goss Graves.

Denying jobs to the already-unemployed can also have a disproportionate effect on certain racial and ethnic minority community members, Algernon Austin, Director of the Program on Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy of the Economic Policy Institute, explained. Unemployment rates for African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans are higher than those of whites. When comparing college-educated workers, the unemployment rate for Asians is also higher. Thus, restricting applications to the currently employed could place a heavier burden on people of color, he concluded.

The use of employment status to screen job applicants could also seriously impact people with disabilities, according to Joyce Bender, an expert in the employment of people with disabilities. “Given my experience, I can say without a doubt that the practice of excluding persons who are currently unemployed from applicant pools is real and can have a negative impact on persons with disabilities,” Bender told the Commission.

Dr. William Spriggs, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy, offered data supporting this testimony. Spriggs presented current national employment statistics showing that African-Americans and Hispanics are overrepresented among the unemployed. He also stated that excluding the unemployed would be more likely to limit opportunities for older applicants as well as persons with disabilities.

“At a moment when we all should be doing whatever we can to open up job opportunities to the unemployed, it is profoundly disturbing that the trend of deliberately excluding the jobless from work opportunities is on the rise,” said Christine Owens, Executive Director of the National Employment Law Project. In addition to presenting statistical evidence, she recounted stories unemployed workers have shared with her organization where they were told directly that they would not be considered for employment due to being unemployed.

James Urban, a partner at the Jones Day law firm, who counsels employers, expressed doubt as to the extent of the problem. Fernan Cepero, representing the Society of Human Resource Professionals, told the Commission that his organization is not aware of this practice being in regular use. But both Mr. Urban and Mr. Cepero noted that the automatic exclusion of unemployed persons from consideration does not constitute “due diligence” in the screening of job applicants.

The EEOC enforces the nation’s laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov. Materials from this Commission meeting, including statements and biographies of the witnesses, may be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/2-16-11/index.cfm.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-16-11.cfm

What is a Tangible Employment Action?

2011-02-28T09:41:00.000-08:00

This is one of the posts I like to reprint every so often because tangible employment actions are an everyday part of the business process and are an easy way to go after employees! Tangible employment actions can be made to appear legitimate, even when they are retaliatory or discriminatory. Pretexts are often used to justify such actions. And, that's where the battle to show the truth comes in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most Black people are not referred to as a “nig_er” in today’s American workplace. Yes, this vicious name-calling does still happen. But, people are savvy these days and have gained an understanding that they need to go deep, deep, deep undercover when they want to get their racism on. Because of how covert racism has become, it’s become harder to prove there are disparities on a job. It’s also difficult to prove active racism, an offensive work environment, discrimination, racially-based harassment or retaliation.

So, how do you set about proving there are issues on your job? Well, think of tangible employment actions. According to the EEOC, a tangible employment action is a significant and negative change in your employment status. Unfulfilled threats do not qualify.

Tangible employment actions include:

--hiring and firing;
--promotion and failure to promote;
--demotion;
--undesirable reassignment;
--a decision causing a significant change in your benefits;
--salary decisions/changes; and
--work assignments.

Always think about tangible employment actions when you make a decision to complain (internally or externally). You must show the professional impact of employment decisions on your career. For instance, a tangible employment action could be shown in an employee who was scheduled for a promotion, until major components of their job were stripped out of their daily responsibilities—without cause. As a result of this employment decision, this person was deemed unqualified for the promotion (which was likely the motive for the employment decision).

A Black employee complaining about a sensitive racial issue might find themselves accused of improper behavior, related to something else, and end up demoted or transferred to a hard to reach work location or may be asked to do lower-level assignments that are not a part of their job. This tangible employment action could be proven to be retaliatory.

An employee could be fired for accusing a manager or coworker of race-based abuses. This is also an example of a tangible employment action--a significant and negative change in your employment status.

Regarding salary, title, and benefits, it doesn’t matter if you are "allowed" to keep your salary, title or benefits after a tangible employment action. If an employment decision represents a significant change in your employment status, it may qualify as a tangible employment action.

Source: www.eeoc.gov

2011-02-18T10:34:00.001-08:00

Union-busting, hidden as deficit reduction, is coming to many states after Wisconsin. Pay attention to this issue. Unions protect workers & get out the vote!

2011-02-18T10:33:00.001-08:00

Today I stand with the teachers, nurses, and all public employees of Wisconsin who are fighting for their rights.

2011-02-09T12:37:00.001-08:00

Stay positive! If you feel the odds are against you, don't have a big pity party. Bad energy has to go somewhere! Stay positive & don't give ammunition away.

Find Your REAL Champions!

2011-02-03T10:15:00.000-08:00

If you have been a target of racially-based discrimination, harassment or retaliation, I know what your life has been like:

People have tried to make you think you’re crazy. They have made you doubt yourself. They have tried to confuse you—challenging your memory of events. You have probably been sold a bill of goods that has convinced you that you’ve overreacted, that you’re sensitive, and that you’ve misunderstood the English language.

You may now believe that you’ve jumped to conclusions. You may have been convinced that you are unaccountable for your actions and behavior. In fact, you now may believe that…

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!

Facing race issues at work is often a battle that minority employees end up fighting alone. And, while it is possible to rely on your personal strength to see yourself through trying times, it is very difficult to do so. It is emotionally, mentally, and physically draining.

That’s why it is so important to establish a true network of friends and family who are willing to assist you or lend you their ear, while you are fighting race-related obstacles at work.

It’s vital that you have someone who is willing to listen to you and who can provide you with objective perspective on what’s taking place on your job. For instance, they may be able to tell you that you’re tripping—that you’ve gone too far with your conspiracy theories and have jumped into a deep abyss of paranoia. Or, they may tell you that your problem is greater than you perceive and that you may have a problem with your company (as a whole) rather than just with a coworker or supervisor.

Finding people who are willing to keep you sane and to help you stay strong can be hard. Initially, people are engrossed in your horror stories of workplace racism, but that wears off when you are calling them on the phone each night or if that’s all you speak about over dinner.

But, you will have true supporters, who don’t care how focused you may become about workplace racism. They want to be there for you. So, it’s up to you to find champions, who will support you as you fight your cause at work.

Just one true friend can make all the difference in lifting your spirits, coming up with strategies, and staying sane.

LEGAL BRIEF: There Are Black People Who Are British?

2011-02-01T09:39:00.000-08:00

This legal brief should give you a chuckle. A British woman did some phone interviews, got a paid internship, and came to the U.S. (Idaho in particular) only to find that some people were surprised she was of African descent because she was BRITISH!!

How did the Negro get to the U.K.?

See below for details:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Northwest Cosmetic Labs Settles Discrimination Suit
Company Fired Black British Intern Because of Race and Color, Federal Agency Charged

IDAHO FALLS, Idaho – Northwest Cosmetic Labs has agreed to settle a federal suit charging discrimination based on race, color and national origin and retaliation against a black employee for $30,000 and other relief, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced on January 13th.

According to the complaint, the employee, a British subject born in Zimbabwe, was hired after a series of phone interviews for a full-time paid internship in cosmetic formulation. She did not interview in person because she was living in England at the time. Upon her arrival in Idaho Falls, she was told by her supervisor that employees at the company would likely be “surprised” to find out that she was black, since she was British. From the beginning, the EEOC said, she received little to no direction from her supervisors and was rarely given assignments, despite her repeated requests to be given work. Her treatment stood in stark contrast to that of the company’s two other interns, who were both Caucasian. They were given ample opportunity to participate in projects and to receive feedback from supervisors. After consistently receiving different treatment from her white counterparts and hearing more race-based comments, she raised these issues with management. Soon thereafter, the EEOC said, she was fired.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed this suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through conciliation. Under the consent decree settling the suit (EEOC v. Northwest Cosmetic Labs LLC, Civil Action No. 10-608-CWD, U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho) approved by Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale, Northwest Cosmetic Labs will pay the employee $30,000. In addition to the monetary payment, the company will adopt a comprehensive non-discrimination policy and complaint procedure, conduct anti-discrimination training for staff and management officials and submit semi-annual reports to the EEOC detailing any complaints of race discrimination or retaliation that may have arisen in the prior six-month period.

EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, "Employment decisions must be based on merit and ability, not race and color. We are pleased that Northwest Cosmetic Labs took this lawsuit seriously and that it will be taking steps to make sure that race and color are not a barrier to success in its workplace.”

“Instead of encountering the exemplary American values of justice and equality, this young visitor was treated to discrimination and punishment for standing up for her rights,” noted EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado. “Fortunately, this country also has an EEOC to fight for discrimination victims, and we will continue to do so.”

Located in Idaho Falls, Northwest Cosmetic Labs formulates and manufactures cosmetic products for third-party customers based throughout North America, Europe and Australia.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-13-11.cfm

LEGAL BRIEF: Supreme Court Upholds EEOC’s Retaliation Reach

2011-01-31T09:28:00.000-08:00

This legal brief is important because it's a reminder that acts of discrimination and/or retaliation can go beyond the initial target and impact other workers. Many people find romance/love in the workplace. So, it's not uncommon to have people who are married or dating at the same job, even if they don't work in the same department. This legal brief is about the fiancé of woman who ended up terminated about 3 weeks after SHE filed a complaint of discrimination against her employer. That's pretty strong evidence that something strange was up. The time between the act that the woman took in filing the complaint and him being fired is extremely short and suggests that the two events are connected. See below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fiancé of Person Filing a Charge of Discrimination Protected From Employer’s Retaliatory Action, Court Rules

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled on January 24th that the fiancé of a woman who filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), was protected from retaliation by their mutual employer and had standing to redress this illegal act. In a unanimous opinion, Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 09-291, the Supreme Court held that long-standing EEOC interpretations of the scope of the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) applied to an individual harmed by retaliation, even if that person had not himself filed a charge of discrimination.

In Thompson, Miriam Regalado filed a charge of discrimination against her employer, North American Stainless (NAS). Three weeks after receiving notice of the charge from the EEOC, NAS fired Regalado’s fiancé, Eric Thompson, who also worked there. Thompson then filed his own charge, claiming his termination was in retaliation for Regalado’s initial charge. After the district court in Kentucky and the entire Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Thompson could not raise a retaliation claim because he himself had not filed a charge of discrimination, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and issued its decision reversing the lower courts’ opinions.

“We are very pleased with the Supreme Court opinion issued today,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “The unanimous decision reaffirms the importance of preventing retaliation against those seeking to protect their civil rights.”

This past fiscal year, the EEOC received more charges alleging retaliation than any other basis, supplanting race discrimination charges for the first time in its 45-year history as the most numerous.

The EEOC enforces the federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information about the EEOC can be obtained at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-24-11.cfm

2011-01-25T10:55:00.001-08:00

Finally getting way more movement in my hand & the pain is gone. I'll have a new post tomorrow.

2011-01-17T08:36:00.001-08:00

If you continually dismiss the feedback given to you at work, you have to own the outcome, which may not be in your favor! Be honest with yourself.

2011-01-17T08:34:00.001-08:00

If you've been given real advice about your performance at work & how to improve, you have to make a choice about whether or not you really want to succeed.

2011-01-17T08:33:00.001-08:00

One thing I'm amazed, at as a retail supervisor, is how many workers give ammunition & a gun to authorities at work. They even line up the sites!

2011-01-13T12:19:00.001-08:00

I'm seeing a hand surgeon tomorrow. Will post next week!

2011-01-11T09:22:00.001-08:00

I slammed my right finger in my car door--swollen & bruised. Took forever to post left-handed. No new post today. Hurts like heck! Sorry!

Figure Out How to Battle the Lies...Your Reputation May Depend On It!

2011-01-07T09:15:00.000-08:00

When you are contemplating filing a race-based complaint, internally or externally, think about how you will overcome the lies that your employer probably has already told about you.

An employer can make up any excuse to justify employment actions against an employee. These excuses don’t have to be proven unless the employee complains about the action. So, the employer can go ahead and accuse you of fabricated performance deficiencies and use those false allegations to deny you a promotion, for example. Unless you say, “I’m being denied advancement for reasons that are without merit…,” no one will ever examine the charges against you. Human Resources is not going to step in and say, “Wait a minute. That’s not the [insert your name] that I know. What’s going on?”

Unless you work for an extremely small company, HR staff may know your name, they probably remember what department you’re assigned to, they may remember your title, but they don’t know your specific contributions to the company—during any given day, month or year. So, don’t think someone in HR will get suspicious, if you are suddenly accused of very negative behavior at work, which is completely out of character for you.

They don’t know you like that and, half the time, HR staff isn’t getting into that level of detail on any employee, unless they are asked to give input on an employment situation—usually at manager’s/supervisor’s, etc. request. When I worked in HR, not one HR staff person read the performance evaluations that were filtered through our office for filing. We simply got a copy, ensured that the employee signed that they read and understood the review, ensured that the supervisor signed the review, and placed the review in the employee’s personnel file. That was it! We never read it to see if anything was fishy or inconsistent or contradictory or just plain unacceptable at face value.

So, it’s up to you to challenge false allegations that a coworker or supervisor, etc. is making about you that are impacting your career or work environment in a negative manner.

If you decide to challenge a false claim, the first thing you need to consider is how you are going to refute the lies. In other words, based on the example, how do you prove that you don’t have performance deficiencies? Well, you could:

--Show copies of previous performance evaluations that contradict what was said;
--Produce copies of emails that contradict new negative allegations against you; and
--Show thank you cards form clients and coworkers; etc.

I know, I’ve gone over some of this before, but we—as a people—really need to get these things drilled into our heads! What else can you do?

Go to the personnel manual. Try to show that your supervisor, employer, etc. violated the company’s own written policies and procedures. That is powerful! Your employer is then forced to justify why they did not follow the pre-existing guidelines they established. This goes a long way in showing an agenda against an employee and shows clear intent, not an accident, in executing an employment action!!

If you are placed on probation, for example, based on false allegations, go to the personnel manual. What does the manual say about handling management issues? If the manual says that an employee should first be given 1) an oral warning; 2) a written warning; 3) be placed on probation, your employer would have to answer why they jumped to step #3 of their own process. They have to justify why what you did was so egregious they violated their own policy, especially if you don’t have a history of having any performance issues.

Other things you could do include:

--Getting witness corroboration to support your version of events. Ask coworkers to write statements for you or to speak to HR reps on your behalf. Getting support in writing is best!

--Tape recording meetings to get verbal threats, racial epithets, etc. on tape.

--Keeping a log of all race-based incidents, incidents of harassment, etc. with specifics details on who did what and when!

--Requesting an internal investigation to place the burden on the company to stop or reverse the fraudulent employment action. Get the HR department on record, should you need to go to a lawyer or outside investigatory agency!

--Keep a log of all the lies your employer tells and write specific quotes (include the date and time of conversations, etc.). Put yourself in a position to have fantastic recall of who said what and when!

Don’t just hand over your career to workplace racists! Fight for what you have earned. It’s a small world. You never know who you will be working with again in the future, especially if you work in a small industry, where everyone knows each other or it's easy to run into former coworkers at meetings, etc. Former coworkers and bosses may even end up representing your clients. Imagine being poisoned on that side of the business.

A bad and falsely earned reputation can haunt you for years!