Attack Your Employer's Credibility

One of the tactics you can use to defeat the lies and false accusations of an employer is to attack their credibility—the same as your employer will attack yours!

There are four basic components for looking into who is or isn’t credible: inherent plausibility, corroboration, motive to falsify, and past history. These are the same components that your employer will try to use to show that you—and not they—lack the credibility to be taken seriously.

Here are some of the questions you should ask yourself regarding the four basic components. These components are also helpful in shaping your overall arguments and positions regarding your complaint and any actions taken by your employer.

Inherent plausibility

--Are your employer’s arguments and positions believable at face value? Why or why not?

--Do their statements and evidence (real or fabricated) make sense? Why or why not?

--Are the actions of your employer justified/appropriate based on allegations or has your employer overreached or overreacted? Explain your position in detail.

--Do the actions of your employer adhere with written policies and procedures or are there violations? For instance, does written policy state/suggest that you should have first been placed on oral warning, but your employer jumped 3 phases and suspended you? Or, was your complaint automatically supposed to be internally investigated (based on your complaint), but your employer did not look into the facts/blatantly ignored your complaint? Provide specifics, provide copies of written policies and procedures, and explain how policies and procedures were violated.

When it comes to inherent plausibility, your goal is to shoot holes in every one of your employer’s arguments and positions. You should be thinking of cross examinations at a trial, when the defense is trying to shut down and destroy prosecution witnesses. Attack! Attack! Attack!

Motive to Falsify

--Does your employer have a reason to lie?

If so, show how your employer's cover story is simply designed as a pretext to hide their real motive--discrimination, harassment, etc. Use your employer's arguments against them to expose contradictions, violations of policy, etc. Use circumstantial or direct evidence to show the false case that was built by your employer.

--Do your employer's witnesses have a reason to lie?

I’m sure you’ve heard the expression, ‘If you think they’re out to get you, they probably are?”

Well, I’m aware of a case of race-based retaliation, where an employer tried to cover up activities against a Black manager by essentially bribing the Black staff in her department to make statements against her or to pretend they did not know what was going on within the department.

Suddenly, there was a market review conducted of salaries within the department and all of these underpaid Black employees received increases. Additionally, Black employees that were willing to sign false statements against the manager were also given a separate salary increase. There was suddenly a performance award given out with a $1,000 bonus. Coincidentally, a Black person in the manager’s department won the award. The award was touted as being a new annual award, but the award was NEVER given out again!

In my case, my two main witnesses received harassing treatment and were calling me to tell me about sudden performance issues they were being alleged to have. They both felt that they were being told to shut up about what they witnessed and heard being said to me.

These are the things you should try to expose because they show people’s motive to lie on you. Some people do not need money to lie. They will lie simply to win favor with your employer and they will HOPE that lying provides them a benefit somewhere along the line. These types of people may feel lying just amounts to office politics and smartly playing the corporate game, so they will take down anyone that may present them with a problem and they will do whatever it takes to show they are a team player.

Some people have a motivation to lie in order to protect someone in the workplace that is highly valued, that they have a close relationship with, etc. You can help prove motivation by showing the links between staff, managers, important business deals, etc.

Corroboration

--Is there witness testimony?

--Is there physical evidence?

You need to create and maintain a list of witnesses that can back up your story of workplace events. If employees resign, that have witnessed your mistreatment, get their contact information or—at the very least—snoop around and find out what company they’ve gone to work for. You can always look them up later.

If possible, get your witnesses to write statements about what they’ve seen. Ask them to get the statements notarized. Someone close to you may be willing to do this! If you think someone would be hesitant to provide you a statement or even to write down what happened in an email, trap them. Yes, I hate to go there, but sometimes you have to trick people into telling the truth. Just see if you can get the person to engage in an email conversation with you about the incident. You can be like, “Can you believe she called me a ------ ?” And, keep the conversation going as long as possible to show that you were called an offensive name, as per this example, and that someone else heard the slur.

As far as physical evidence, document everything, save all hard copies of important and relevant paperwork (e.g., administrative forms, timesheets, etc.), forward important email, memos, etc. to your personal internet account, and if there has been physical violence—take pictures. If there has been physical violence, you should also call the police and make a report. You can also secretly tape record conversations and meetings. Even if it’s not admissible in court, you can use it to convince an investigator, lawyer, etc. to understand that your case is with merit and should be investigated.

Past Record

--Does your employer have a history of similar behavior and allegations?

You saw how they did Michael Jackson at his trial. Right or wrong, when there is an accusation, there is also an attempt to show a pattern of bad behavior. If you are under attack by your employer, you already know what I am talking about. In my case, one false allegation led to another and another. Before you knew it, my employer was trolling through my previous performance evaluations from years before and they were taking a sentence or two from the section about improving performance. They added this information to my current review and then wrote, in my latest review, that I was habitually and continually having these problems. This was a lie, but they were smart. They needed to make me a problem employee. They could only do that by pretending that I was consistently engaged in negative behavior. They twisted feedback on minor improvements that any employee could make and made them into a federal case that allegedly warranted me being targeted for HR attention.

This is what employers do, when they’ve committed to a course of action against an employee (e.g., setting a person up for termination, demotion, etc.).

You have to take the same tactic and show how your employer has a past history of engaging in mistreatment, misconduct, not investigating allegations of race-based abuses, or how they’ve previously engaged in discrimination, harassment, retaliation, etc. Ask questions and snoop around. One of your coworkers may have information you can use. Or, you may already know about how someone was dogged out by your employer, but you were uninvolved in the incident. Write down everything you know about that case and any others that are similar or show the same corporate dysfunctions you believe to be a problem in your case. Show the patterns!

Compensation Discrimination

According to the EEOC: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibit discrimination in "compensation" based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or protected activity. The term "compensation" includes any payments made to, or on behalf of, an employee as remuneration for employment. Compensation discrimination in violation of Title VII, the ADEA, or the ADA can exist in a number of forms:

• An employer pays employees inside a protected class less than similarly situated employees outside the protected class, and the employer's explanation (if any) does not satisfactorily account for the differential (e.g., Black workers make less than White workers in the same job/classification without cause);

• An employer maintains a neutral compensation policy or practice that has an adverse impact on employees in a protected class and cannot be justified as job-related and consistent with business necessity (e.g., an employer claims there’s a non-race related job or business need that explains why White staff make more than Black staff and this reason is the cause of pay disparity, according to the employer);

• An employer sets the pay for jobs predominantly held by protected class members below that suggested by the employer's job evaluation study, while the pay for jobs predominantly held by employees outside the protected class is consistent with the level suggested by the job evaluation study (e.g., Black workers are paid below the market rate and maybe below the minimum rate for positions predominately held by Black workers, while an employer properly pays or overcompensates White workers based on the market rates for their jobs);

• A discriminatory compensation system has been discontinued, but salary disparities caused by the system have not been eradicated (e.g., pay disparities have been identified and the compensation system has been fixed, however the pay levels of the discriminated employees have not been properly adjusted to fix the errors identified in the pay system); or

• The compensation of one or more employees in a protected class is artificially depressed because of a discriminatory employer practice that affects compensation, such as steering employees in a protected class to lower paid jobs than persons outside the class, or discriminating in promotions, performance appraisals, procedures for assigning work, or training opportunities. (e.g., manipulating performance evaluations, denying training opportunities and giving out menial assignments, etc. as a mechanism to underpay and stifle the pay of Black workers or keeping Black staff in lower paying jobs by not posting internal job vacancies, denying Black workers promotions, setting unequal, corruptible, and lax promotion criteria, having double-standards for promotions, denying transfers, etc. as a means of holding back the pay of Black workers).

There will be more on compensation discrimination tomorrow.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/compensation.html

Questions Investigators Will Ask to Probe for Retaliation

Workplace retaliation is illegal under Title VII, which contains anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, and anti-retaliation provisions. The questions, listed below, come from the EEOC and provide you with an idea of the kind of questions an investigator will be contemplating, in the event you file a complaint of workplace retaliation. These are just some of the considerations that would be part of a formal complaint:

1. Did the employee oppose discrimination in the workplace? (retaliation based on a complaint of discrimination)

a. Did the employee explicitly or implicitly communicate to the employer or another covered entity a belief that its activity constituted unlawful discrimination under Title VII…?

b. If the protest was broad or ambiguous (an employee didn’t come right out and say they felt they were the victim of discrimination), would the employee’s protest reasonably have been interpreted as opposition to such unlawful discrimination?

c. Did someone closely associated with the employee oppose discrimination?

2. Did the employee have a reasonable and good faith belief that the practice they were opposing opposed practice violated the anti-discrimination laws?

a. If so, the employee is protected against retaliation, even if s/he was mistaken about the unlawfulness of the challenged practices. If not, the employee is not protected under the anti-retaliation clauses.

3. Did the employee participate in the statutory complaint process?

a. Did the employee or someone closely associated with the employee file a charge, or testify, assist, or participate in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or lawsuit under the statutes enforced by the EEOC?

b. If so, the employee is protected against retaliation regardless of the validity or reasonableness of the original allegation of discrimination.

4. Did the employer subject the employee to any kind of adverse action? An adverse action is an action taken to try to keep someone from opposing a discriminatory practice, or from participating in an employment discrimination proceeding. Examples of adverse actions include: employment actions such as termination, refusal to hire, and denial of promotion and other actions affecting employment such as threats, unjustified negative evaluations, unjustified negative references, or increased surveillance [heightened scrutiny].

5. Is there direct evidence that retaliation was a motive for the adverse action?

a. Did the employer, manager, etc. admit that it undertook the adverse action because of the protected activity?

b. Did the employer, manager, etc. express bias against the employee based on the protected activity? If so, is there evidence linking that statement of bias to the adverse action? Such a link would be established if, for example, the statement was made by the decision-maker at the time of the challenged action.

6. Is there circumstantial evidence that retaliation was the true reason for the adverse action?

a. Is there evidence raising an inference that retaliation was the cause of the adverse action? Such an inference is raised if the adverse action took place shortly after the protected activity and if the decision-maker was aware of the protected activity before undertaking the adverse action.

b. If there was a long period of time between the protected activity and the adverse action, is there other evidence raising an inference that the cause of the adverse action was retaliation?

7. Has the employer produced evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action?

a. Is the employer’s explanation a pretext designed to hide retaliation? (Readers: many employers come up with fraudulent, non-discriminatory reasons for adverse actions. These are called pretexts and have been discussed on this blog many times. A pretext is a cover story that is used to create a non-race related reason for events that have transpired at work. Any smart employer will try to come up with a good pretext, a legitimate reason for targeting an employee. This, an employer hopes, would prevent the company from being found guilty of violating Federal workplace statutes.)

b. Did the employer treat similarly situated employees who did not engage in protected activity differently from the employee?

c. Did the employer subject the employee to heightened scrutiny after s/he engaged in protected activity?

These are just some of the questions that an investigator will seek answer for. If, on the basis of all of the evidence, the investigator is persuaded that retaliation was the true reason for the adverse action, then "cause" should be found.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html

Pretexts to Disguise Racism

There are certain topics that I like to repeat on this blog because they are so important to the discussion about fighting back against workplace racism. One of those topics is the strategy of many companies to develop pretexts (cover stories) that are used to hide racially based motivations for employment actions, such as demotions, suspensions, firings, etc.

When you are dealing with racists, in today’s society, very rarely will a manager be dumb enough to tell you that you aren’t being promoted because he/she refuses to put a Black person into a certain level job.

As a result, a racist manager will come up with other ways to justify denying a promotion to a Black worker. So, the manager will make up a laundry list of false and disingenuous reasons for the denial. These reasons are pretexts to hide the real cause of the action. Pretexts might include:

--blaming the Black worker for problems caused by other staff in the department;

--accusing the Black worker of having a bad attitude or of being insubordinate;

--stating the Black worker is not a team player; or

--belittling the accomplishments of the Black worker in a way that justifies denying a promotion, etc.

The point is that some supervisors, manager, directors, and executives will make up some other complaint that hides what their real motivation is--racism! That’s just how it often is at work. Although you should always do everything in your power to avoid giving White workers and managers ammunition to use against you, remember that any incident or discussion can be twisted and manipulated to fulfill someone’s agenda.

So, regardless of the issue that is being presented as legitimate, it’s up to you to show that the arguments being used by your employer or manager are nothing more than a pretext to hide their true motives, which are racist, discriminatory and/or retaliatory in nature. You have to build a clichéd house of cards comprised of verifiable testimony (from coworkers or others that have witnessed your mistreatment) and physical evidence (email or other documentation) that can’t be refuted by your employer.

You should learn as much as you can about your company’s anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies by referring to your company’s personnel manual. In addition to learning about those areas, you should read the policies on performance review guidelines, promotion criteria, procedures for addressing performance management issues, and requesting an internal investigation.

This will help you have a clear understanding of the practices and policies that should dictate your employer’s actions with regard to the everyday conditions of your employment. Having a well-rounded familiarity with this information will put you in a stronger position to defend your employee rights, to track and report misconduct and mistreatment, as well as to position yourself for and negotiate your next promotion or other advancement opportunities.

What Would You Know About the Race-Card?

Many Whites will throw around accusations that Black workers just play “the race card.” Most times, they never know the full facts about what a Black worker has suffered, but they still feel it’s okay to throw around “the race card” and “race-baiter” labels as if Blacks have nothing better to do with their time.

Do they ever stop to think about the additional mistreatment that a worker will often encounter after filing a complaint of race-based discrimination, harassment or retaliation? Even a victim of sexual harassment can tell you that accusers are often subjected to additional mistreatment, following a complaint.

So, I ask…who willingly puts their life into chaos simply to make a false claim? The number of workers willing to file false complaints and to put themselves in a position to have an even bigger bulls-eye painted on their forehead has to negligible.

When I filed my complaint with a state agency, alleging race-based retaliation and discrimination, the case worker strongly suggested I not file the complaint until I’d left employment with the company. She said that her agency found that attacks and illegal misconduct often escalated AFTER a person filed a complaint.

She said many employers would often document all sorts of false issues and get witness statements against a complaining employee in order to discredit them. In fact, she came right out and said that many employers looked for ways to “set up” complaining employees, while they were still employed.

She said these actions were taken because employers hoped that any evidence (false or real) that they could come up with would create a pretext or cover story for all of the decisions that had been made against the employee in the workplace. There was also hope that creating patterns of poor performance or bad attitude, etc. would justify why an employee was being targeted by HR staff, managers, directors, etc.

Stated plainly, even when being investigated by a state or Federal agency, many employers continue to engage in illegal abuse against complaining employees.

Again, who puts themselves in this position simply to be a race-baiter or to play the so-called race card? It is not worth it from an employment/financial, physical or emotional standpoint. Depending on where a worker is geographically location, they may have an issue of dealing with courts that don’t like to take on these cases. So, there’s always an uphill battle, when making race-related complaints at work.

People shouldn’t focus on petty labels like “race-baiter” and accusing someone of playing the “race card.” Unless you’ve experienced the trauma that many workplace complainants are subjected to, you should not be so quick to judge anyone’s motives for filing a grievance.

Real racism and real cover-ups and real targeting of complaining employees makes it nearly unbearable for many workers to see through the process of vindicating their rights through an investigatory agency or by legal means. Many workers walk away and start a career somewhere else. This is often easier than being subjected to continuing race-related mistreatment at a job.

If anyone assumes that many or most Black workers, who complain of race-based misconduct at work are playing the “race card,” then they should look in the mirror and ask themselves about their own race-related biases against Blacks.

No one chooses to be victimized at work.

The number of people willing to “play the race card” and to see it through an internal or external investigation and/or legal scrutiny is probably close to zero. A liar will be exposed!!

You couldn’t pay me to subject myself to the trials and tribulations I’ve endured. I’d rather be left alone to do my job! I’m sure I speak for many others.

By the way, accusing Blacks of playing the race-card (without knowing the facts of a case) amounts to playing the race-card yourself.

Workplace Racism Isn't a Stand Alone Issue

As I blogged about yesterday, racism isn’t an isolated problem in the workplace. Instead, racism is often combined with other factors that may be personal, social and/or business-related in nature.

Yesterday, I mentioned how my former employer changed the personnel manual to specifically mention personal and social issues sometimes being the problem in the workplace, rather than racism. They followed that argument with a statement of position to an outside investigatory agency stating that I had personal/social issues with my supervisor and the director of my department—both White. My former employer specifically used language stating that I had a “fear of being picked on” and they accused me of being “very, very emotional” and “very stressed out.” In other words, they were claiming that some sort of school yard or clique-related issue and what they proclaimed to be my personal weaknesses were the causes of the issues at work and not the active racism, discrimination and retaliation being alleged.

My former employer went even further by naming two mid-level White coworkers (both White), who they claimed I also had “issues” with. Specifically, they wrote, “She also had issues with [NAMES] (White).” Yes, they included “White” in their official written statement. This part of their defense was a pretext, a way to hide their real race-related motivations.

In other words, my former employer was claiming there wasn’t any systemic racism in the workplace and that I hadn’t been the victim of discrimination or retaliation. No! According to them, I had an issues working with White women. That was part of their defense, along with general deniability. And, even though the White women they were calling out by name had documented issues working with other Black women, while I had no complaints about my working relationship with anyone of any color, it was alleged that I suddenly was unable to work with White women.

This is the issue I want you to be mindful of. I could have easily fallen for the bait and gotten into a huge back and forth with the company about my relationship with these women, specifically, and White women, overall. Instead, I BRIEFLY addressed any issues related to these specific women and went right back to discussing the issues of systemic racism and the intentional retaliation I suffered.

Another tactic I used was to pose logical questions based on the corporate defense that I had a problem working with White women. For instance, if the company believed I had personal/social issues with White women, why didn’t they ever engage in a conversation with me about the so-called problem, offer me training, write me up, send me to HR, terminate me, etc. The company was unable to respond to these questions because there was no issue and, therefore, no reason to consult with me about such things.

I point this out because this is how you can quickly turn around false accusations of alleged personal or social issues that are fabrications. If someone is making up lies, assume the lies are the truth (for a moment) and ask the logical questions about policy and procedure that would result from legitimate issues of this nature. This is how you can expose the lies.

Many companies will make claims, but if they are lying, none of the groundwork will typically have been done. In many cases, allegations are made that retroactively accuse complaining workers of problems rather than documentation existing prior to allegations of wrongdoing and/or illegal misconduct being levied.

When dealing with lies:

--take a breather before sitting down to really analyze the lies/use fresh eyes to read any documentation;

--don’t take the lies personally/try to be objective;

--pretend you are a lawyer;

--find every way that you can tear holes into the lies and fabricated defense; and

--attack the lies line-by-line or argument-by-argument.

Adverse Actions: Heightened Scrutiny by Coworkers at an Employer's Request

According to the EEOC, an adverse action is an action taken to try to keep someone from opposing a discriminatory practice, or from participating in an employment discrimination proceeding. Examples of adverse actions include:

-- Employment actions such as termination, refusal to hire, and denial of promotion;

-- Other actions affecting employment such as threats, unjustified negative evaluations, unjustified negative references, or increased surveillance; and

-- Any other action such as an assault or unfounded civil or criminal charges that are likely to deter reasonable people from pursuing their rights.

Once again, the EEOC web site contains an example of an adverse action that reminds me of illegal corporate behavior that is very familiar to me. The example is this:

A Black worker has filed a charge alleging that he was racially harassed by his supervisor and co-workers. After learning about the charge, the Black worker’s manager asked two employees to keep the Black worker under surveillance and to report back about his activities. According to the EEOC, the surveillance constitutes an "adverse action" that is likely to deter protected activity, and is unlawful if it was conducted because of the Black worker's protected activity. The statutory retaliation clauses prohibit any adverse treatment that is based on a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter a complaining employee or others from engaging in protected activity.

Some of you may have experience with complaining about racially-based mistreatment and then suddenly having coworkers subjecting you to heightened scrutiny at the employer’s request. Some companies will go all out in their recruitment efforts to get corporate spies, particularly in race-related incidences. If the employer is convinced that someone in their employment did violate anti-discrimination, anti-harassment and/or anti-retaliation statutes, the employer may feel compelled to do a James Bond in order to find anything that can provide the company with cover.

All many employers can think of is how they can pull a bait and switch. Instead of focusing on accusations of race-based violations, the company may focus on presenting the complaining worker as a habitually problem employee. It is not uncommon for employers to come up with negative patterns of behavior to use against a complaining employee. So, they may ask coworkers to watch the complaining employee and then they may try to use anything perceived as ammunition against the employee as justification for the treatment of the complaining worker.

A harassed employee may be having problems sleeping, may be physically ill due to the stress of their work situation, may be depressed, etc. This employee may have a day or two of getting into the office late because of the dread they feel about being a target at work. Coworkers who are assigned to watch the employee may report two instances of lateness in a 2 week period, for example. An employer might then use the spies/coworkers as evidence against the complaining worker. They can do this by presenting the complaining employee as someone who’s had a chronic problem with attendance, which is a lie. And, then they can use the spies as corroborating witnesses to their position. During an investigation, even without written documentation citing a problem with lateness, an employer might be deemed credible, when making false accusations about work attendance/punctuality.

Now, accusations of lateness have nothing to do with the allegations from the employee that they've been subjected to race-based mistreatment. However, an employer would rather have that discussion (about fake performance issues on the part of the complaining employee), then deal with the realities of their work environment.

This may sound paranoid, but it’s not. I had a coworker, who couldn’t keep it to herself that she was coming into work early and staying late to spy on her manager at the request of authorities within her department. She was told to rummage through her manager’s desk for anything that could be used against the manager. Previously, this manager was accused of playing the race card and of being a race-baiter, who was only interesting in filing a race-based lawsuit against the company. So, the company wanted this manager’s office nearly ransacked in order to find out what she was up to, if she was informing anyone of her issues in the office, if she had sought outside assistance against the company, etc.

This is just a warning that you should be careful with how you judge your relationships at work. It is fine to trust some people you work with, but you should remember that many people can have their heads turned by promises of promotions, bonuses, etc. Be careful about sharing private information about your complaint and about speaking about your mistreatment with coworkers. You don’t know who is a company spy.

If you do have suspicions that you are being watched by corporate spies, you should document any behavior, words or actions that support this perception. You should be sure to include these suspicions in any report of potentially illegal behavior as adverse actions are illegal.

If you are being watched, it may be part of your employer’s efforts to stop you from engaging in the protected activity of complaining about racially-based mistreatment/violations of civil rights statutes. The use of corporate spies can also be used as a signal to other employees that they will receive the same treatment, should they ever decide to complain.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartD

Don't Use "Bullying" as a Catch-all Term

When people are under attack at work it’s common to find that they refer to their mistreatment as “bullying.” There’s only one problem with that… only about 13 states have anti-bullying legislation pending. However, not a single bill has been signed into law. Bullying isn’t officially legislated, which makes it harder to seek legal remedy.

African Americans, like women and other groups, are considered a protected class. There are laws we can look to, when we encounter racists at work, who may use bullying as a tactic to cause harm to a coworker or subordinate.

Much of the typical behavior of bullies would fall under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination against protected groups of people. Part of the anti-discrimination codes for the workplace is a prohibition against harassment and retaliation. Connected to harassment is language that states that it is illegal to subject an employee to a hostile and offensive work environment, which is the goal of a bully. A bully wants to make to make their victim feel miserable, isolated, and threatened or intimidated. A bully also wants to make it difficult for a coworker or subordinate to fulfill the requirements of their job.

If bullying is a tactic being used against you by a racist on the job, you should stay away from the term “bully” and focus more on the actual consequences of the mistreatment. As stated above, you should focus on discussing the specifics of the hostile work environment and provide examples of your mistreatment and how it is preventing you from doing your job.

So, you would want to mention, for example, that you are being subjected to verbal and physical threats, you are being yelled at in front of coworkers, you are called by racial epithets, you are being subjected to stare down contests, you are having your space encroached upon as a method of physically intimidating you, your emails and voice mails are not returned and it is preventing you from doing your job, and that your are completely ignored in one-on-one meetings and group meetings. Again, these are examples.

Most importantly, you must show that this mistreatment is race-related in order to be covered by Federal statutes prohibiting the discrimination and harassment of a member of a protected class. You can do this by showing that the excuses provided by the harasser (bully) are nothing more than a pretext to hide their real motive—racism. You can show that you are treated differently than similarly situated employees, such as coworkers in the same job of another race.

You can point out that you were subjected to heightened scrutiny (observation), unlike similarly situated employees or employees of any class within your unit or the company, as a whole. You can also show how your performance reviews contained surprise negative feedback that was contradictory to the positive feedback you received throughout the year or you can describe how you were falsely labeled as having performance deficiencies. You must build a case that shows that there is no reasonable justification for why you were targeted except race.

By connecting the so-called bullying behavior to active racism, you can demonstrate that a coworker or supervisor or other member of authority violated your rights under Federal law. Remember, focus on specifics. Don’t rely on the term bullying as a catch-all phrase. Bullying will make it seem like there was a simple personality problem between two employees. So, if you have a race-based issue at work…that is how you should refer to it. Don’t water down your case by referring to bullying instead of active racism, discrimination, and harassment.

Disparate Treatment

Disparate treatment occurs when members of a protected class are treated differently from similarly situated employees. The question examined is whether the employer's actions were motivated by discriminatory intent. Most employers won’t admit to treating an employee differently because of race, but it does occasionally happen. That rare case would be an example of direct evidence.

Most employees will have to use circumstantial evidence to show disparate treatment. To do so, an employee must point out how the actions of an employer infer racial discrimination in the workplace. The employer would then have to provide a reason, a non-discriminatory reason, for why they took the actions being disputed. Many employers will provide a reason that is nothing more than a pretext (something I’ve mentioned in previous posts) to hide their real motivation—discrimination. So, they will come up with a race-neutral reason to justify their actions.

An employee probably won’t be successful in proving disparate treatment, unless they prove that the reason provided by the employer is a pretext (a lie/cover story). Therefore, it’s important to document every meeting you participate in regarding your issue, to file away key pieces of evidence (e.g., memos and emails), and to maintain a list of witnesses, who can corroborate your position.

Employees must attack their employer’s stated and written positions/defense, line by line. Don’t leave out any relevant points or fail to point out any inconsistencies, no matter how minor the issue may seem. You must build a strong circumstantial case, if you don’t have direct evidence of disparate or unequal treatment at work.

FYI: An example of disparate treatment would be asking Black applicants to take and pass a special test, but Whites don't have to take this test at all.

Source: http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G701.htm

Bona Fide Occupation Qualification (BFOQ)

A bona fide occupation qualification (BFOQ) is a quality or an attribute that employers are allowed to consider when making decisions on the hiring and retention of employees–qualities that, when considered, in other contexts would be considered discriminatory and thus violating civil rights employment law. In other words, a BFOQ can be the justification an employer provides after being accused of discrimination.

An example of a BFOQ is that Chinese restaurants can argue they have a legitimate reason for hiring only Asians to work in their restaurants. Other examples can be found in the mandatory retirement ages for bus drivers and airline pilots, which are required for safety reasons.

It is important to know this term because you may come across it, after confronting an employer about a potentially discriminatory practice. If your employer does claim that it is not discriminating against you because there is a BFOQ related to your job, you can question that defense because it is the employer’s responsibility to prove BFOQs are "reasonably necessary" and that there is no reasonable alternative with a lesser impact on the protected classes (e.g., minorities, women, the disabled, etc.).

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_requirement

Tangible Employment Actions Aren't Connected to Maintaining Salary or Benefits!

Workplace harassment is defined by law as behavior that, while offensive, is extremely serious because it changes the conditions of your employment or creates a hostile work environment. In regard to the law, for something to change the conditions of your employment, the “something” must be a tangible employment action. A tangible employment action is any significant change in your employment status. It’s an action that has a negative impact on your work environment, job function or career.

A tangible employment action is not simply someone making a threat or giving you lip service. So, if someone’s telling you they’re going to meet you in the parking lot, next to your car, at 3 o’clock—that’s just not going to cut it. Now, if they show up and attack you, then that would be assault. A tangible employment would be:

--a demotion;
--a suspension;
--being stripped of your staff;
--being denied a promotion with no basis;
--receiving a pay cut under false pretenses;
--being transferred to a menial job;
--being transferred to a remote location or being transferred to a hard to reach location (making it difficult to get to and from work) or being isolated from other staff; or
--being subjected to a hostile work environment that is so offensive and persistent that you can’t perform your job.

Some employers try to get all Slick Willie with these actions. So, sometimes they won’t take away an employee’s salary or benefits. Then, they’ll argue that there isn’t a really significant change in job status/no significant penalty. But, that argument doesn’t fly because tangible employment actions aren’t considered based on whether or not an employee retains the same salary or benefits. So, if there is a significant and negative change to your job—even with the retention of pay and benefits—you can argue that you were hit with a tangible employment action.

In my case, I was denied a promotion without basis—except racism and retaliation. I kept my salary and benefits. I filed a complaint with the Office of Human Rights (OHR). My employer responded to OHR that they didn’t change my salary, title, etc. and used that to try to prove that everything was legitimate that happened to me. They didn’t know that I knew they were full of sh*t and that I could argue such based on the fact that I knew that tangible employment actions are not linked to retaining salary, benefits, etc.!

Anyway, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, tangible employment actions:

--occur when a supervisor uses the official powers of the company to take action(s) against an employee;
--are official acts of the company;
--are often documented in company records;
--often have the official approval of the company and its internal processes;
--often cause financial harm; and
--generally, can only be caused by a supervisor or other agent of your company, since a coworker just doesn’t have the power to bring about a significant, negative change in another employee’s employment status or job responsibilities.

So, if you feel you are the wrongful victim of a tangible employment action, PREPARE TO FIGHT BACK!

Tip #1: Maintain a record of any memos or emails you receive that are meant to justify the tangible employment action (e.g., corrective action notice, written warnings, etc.);

Tip #2: Be able to produce your salary history, by maintaining a record of your income with your employer. Show any decrease in pay. Maintain a record of any memos or emails that are meant to justify a salary decrease.

Tip #3: Check the personnel manual! Before such extremes actions were taken against you, check to see if your employer is following its own policies and procedures. If not, point out any violations that may exist.

Tip #4: Find out about past history! Have other employees engaged in the same behavior that you were accused of engaging in or of having the same performance deficiencies that you were accused of having? If so, what happened to those people? Does it differ from actions taken against you? If so, and the consequences for other employees was nonexistent or very minor, you may be able to claim disparate and unequal treatment by your employer.

Tip #5: Keep pushing your side of the story! Don’t let HR or your employer ignore your version of the facts. Document everything, including every relevant conversation you’ve had with HR staff and authorities at your job. List any contradictions in what they say about policies and justifications for the actions. Provide witness statements to support you (e.g., character references or eye witness accounts of events, etc.) and request that HR check with these individuals to confirm your story.

Tip #6: File a grievance or request an internal investigation! Don’t let tangible employment actions slide. If you believe a manager is acting on racist whims by stripping you of your staff or cutting your pay, ask for HR to investigate the matter! It’s your career, fight for it! If the company doesn’t find in your favor, appeal the decision!

Tip #7: Seek legal counsel! Don’t be afraid to consult an attorney in response to a fraudulent tangible employment action.

Tip #8: Remember that your company will usually do everything in its powers to make it appear that the tangible employment action was warranted. This will be their justification for why no violations of Federal law occurred. It is your job to show that the arguments presented by your employer are nothing but pretexts used to hide their true motivations, which might be harassment, discrimination or retaliation. By keeping a log of events that transpired, keeping hard copies of memos, emails, and other documentation that supports your case, and by tracking comments made and actions taken by your supervisor, Human Resources, and corporate management, you can begin to demonstrate that their defense is dishonest and solely meant to cover up the violation of your employee rights. Focus on why their defense is untruthful! That is the burden placed on complainants!

Handling Performance Evaluations - Part I

Sorry for not posting this morning. I lost my Internet connection and couldn’t restore my service before leaving for work. Anyway, here’s today’s post…

In the past, I’ve written numerous posts about negative performance evaluations and I’ve provided some suggestions for performance reviews. The reason why performance evaluations are heavily covered on this blog is because some people in the workplace are very good at hiding the real motivation behind their actions against Black and other minority employees—racism.

Anyone, who is under attack at work, must show that the reasons their employer has given for the "special attention" are nothing more than a pretext to hide their real motivation—active racism. This can’t be stressed enough. It is up to you to point out the lies and inconsistencies being offered by whoever is attacking you on the job.

Performance evaluations are a great way for a racist to hide their motivations for stifling the career of a Black or minority employee, to justify any negative employment actions they’ve taken against a Black or minority employee, and to set the employee up for future employment actions, up to and including termination. Empowered racists in the workplace (those with authority to direct the work of others, to suggest tangible employment actions, such as suspensions and demotions, etc.) heavily rely on their ability to corrupt the legitimate processes, procedures, and policies at a company for their own evil purposes. And, performance evaluations are a favored way of accomplishing many goals, when it comes to harassing, retaliating against or discriminating against Black or other minority workers.

Many racist managers make it very clear, when a minority worker is going to receive a negative review. These managers spend a lot of time laying the groundwork to provide a horrible review to minority workers. So, many Black workers are not surprised to walk into a review and hear all manner of falsehoods, misrepresentations, etc. regarding their performance and behavior during a review year. But, sometimes, there are surprises.

In my case, my supervisor created a mid-year performance evaluation process that was unprecedented. The sole purpose of the review was to retaliate against me to for providing truthful testimony in an investigation involving a Black manager. So, she decided to give me a very negative mid-year review at a company that never gave mid-year reviews. And, she followed it up with a very negative year-end review.

So, don’t make any assumptions going into a performance review meeting. You never know how it will turn out. So, it’s best to prepare for the best or worst case scenarios. Keeping that in mind, here are some tips for handling performance evaluations:

Tip #1: Know the performance evaluation guidelines at your company! If the guidelines aren’t included in the personnel manual, find out if there is other documentation and ask HR for a copy. You have a right to know the standards and criteria that will be used to judge the performance of EVERY employee. Without knowing the standards, you won’t know if you are being treated equitably and fairly, compared to other staff.

Additionally, knowing the guidelines for performance evaluations will help you hear anything “fishy” that’s said and can help you spot violations of corporate policies. For instance, your performance evaluation guidelines may state that recency errors shouldn't negatively impact your review. Therefore, if your supervisor is putting extreme weight on something that happened in the weeks prior to your review AND you never had a problem such as that, your supervisor may be engaging in recency error. This means that your review is being skewed towards the most recent negative behavior you showed as opposed to reflecting the entire review period—as it should!

Tip #2: Ask for a copy of your draft performance evaluation—in advance! Some employers allow employees to see a draft copy of their performance review in order for employees to prepare notes and questions for their performance review meeting. If policy allows you to see an advance copy of your review, make sure you do! If your supervisor doesn’t mention this, ask for a copy of your review. You don’t have to provide any other reason for seeing the review, except that you are entitled to a copy of the review (assuming it is in the policy/guidelines) and you want to be prepared for your review meeting.

Tip #3: If you don’t get an advance copy of your review, ask for a copy of your review AT THE START OF YOUR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MEETING! Many managers like to read the review to employees and provide them with a copy of the review after the review meeting. However, a person can read a review anyway they want to make it sound one way or another. Your supervisor can read you a watered down version of the review. Or, your supervisor might skip several key and highly critical sentences contained the review. This might be for malicious reasons or this might be done because your supervisor doesn’t like confrontation, etc. But, you don’t know what the review says unless you read it yourself.

Remember, you are usually expected to sign the review before you leave the performance evaluation meeting. There’s not a scenario where you’re asked to take the review home, think about the content, sign it, and return it to your boss. You shouldn’t have to skim the review at the end of the meeting because your supervisor allegedly read the entire thing to you. I think we all know that supervisors usually want us to rush through the reading of the review and to just sign and get out of their office, so they can do the next review or just be done with the process. But, you should be able to completely read the review—AND ASK QUESTIONS. And, there shouldn’t be an issue with you reading the review as your supervisor is discussing it/reading it aloud. You can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Many more tips will be provided tomorrow. Stay tuned…

Reporting Harassment

According to the EEOC, an employer should make clear that it will not tolerate adverse treatment of employees because they report harassment or provide information related to such complaints. An anti- harassment policy and complaint procedure will not be effective without such an assurance.

Management should undertake whatever measures are necessary to ensure that retaliation does not occur. For example, when management investigates a complaint of harassment, the official who interviews the parties and witnesses should remind these individuals about the prohibition against retaliation.

Management also should scrutinize employment decisions affecting the complainant and witnesses during and after the investigation to ensure that such decisions are not based on retaliatory motives.

So, if you have reported harassment or some other form of illegal misconduct, the onus is on your employer to ensure that you are not subjected to retaliation because you’ve spoken up about mistreatment. This means that management should warn those you are making complaints about, as well as other staff being interviewed as material witnesses, that you are not to be targeted in any way shape or form for making a complaint. Your employer’s anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies should be sent in reminder emails to ALL STAFF—periodically—but, particularly after an incident of potential harassment has been reported.

Your employer should not name you or call you out in any communication being sent to all staff. Employees that are serving as witnesses should be warned not to repeat anything that is discussed during an investigation of harassment. Steps should be taken to shut down the rumor mill—before it gets started!

If an employee has made a complaint of harassment and someone with authority to recommend employment actions makes a sudden recommendation to suspend or to demote or to fire, etc. that employee, the employer should automatically question the employment recommendation to determine if the motivation is legitimate or simply a pretext to fire the employee for making a complaint. Employers should not simply take the word of a supervisor, etc., when they are aware that the supervisor is recommending action that could be intentionally retaliatory, may be meant to scare the employee out of opposing illegal mistreatment, and may be meant to intimidate other employees in order to prevent them from opposing illegal mistreatment or from participating in an investigation against the company.

Employers can’t claim deniability by blaming a supervisor for taking action against an employee as though the supervisor were a rogue employee of the company. Supervisors rely on the authority given to them by management and can’t execute a vendetta or any adverse actions without cooperation or intentional ignorance from higher up within the company. The law will not diminish the responsibility of employers to examine all employment actions, particularly against employees that have opposed mistreatment.

Try to Weaken or Destroy Your Employer's Credibility!

One of the tactics you can use to defeat the lies and false accusations of an employer is to attack their credibility—the same as your employer will attack yours!

There are four basic components for looking into who is or isn’t credible: inherent plausibility, corroboration, motive to falsify, and past history. These are the same components that your employer will try to use to show that you—and not they—lack the credibility to be taken seriously.

Here are some of the questions you should ask yourself regarding the four basic components. These components are also helpful in shaping your overall arguments and positions regarding your complaint and any actions taken by your employer.

Inherent plausibility

--Are your employer’s arguments and positions believable at face value? Why or why not?

--Do their statements and evidence (real or fabricated) make sense? Why or why not?

--Are the actions of your employer justified/appropriate based on allegations or has your employer overreached or overreacted? Explain your position in detail.

--Do the actions of your employer adhere with written policies and procedures or are there violations? For instance, does written policy state/suggest that you should have first been placed on oral warning, but your employer jumped 3 phases and suspended you? Or, was your complaint automatically supposed to be internally investigated (based on your complaint), but your employer did not look into the facts/blatantly ignored your complaint? Provide specifics, provide copies of written policies and procedures, and explain how policies and procedures were violated.

When it comes to inherent plausibility, your goal is to shoot holes in every one of your employer’s arguments and positions. You should be thinking of cross examinations at a trial, when the defense is trying to shut down and destroy prosecution witnesses. Attack! Attack! Attack!

Motive to Falsify

--Does your employer have a reason to lie?

If so, show how your employer's cover story is simply designed as a pretext to hide their real motive--discrimination, harassment, etc. Use your employer's arguments against them to expose contradictions, violations of policy, etc. Use circumstantial or direct evidence to show the false case that was built by your employer.

--Do your employer's witnesses have a reason to lie?

I’m sure you’ve heard the expression, ‘If you think they’re out to get you, they probably are?”

Well, I’m aware of a case of race-based retaliation, where an employer tried to cover up activities against a Black manager by essentially bribing the Black staff in her department to make statements against her or to pretend they did not know what was going on within the department.

Suddenly, there was a market review conducted of salaries within the department and all of these underpaid Black employees received increases. Additionally, Black employees that were willing to sign false statements against the manager were also given a separate salary increase. There was suddenly a performance award given out with a $1,000 bonus. Coincidentally, a Black person in the manager’s department won the award. The award was touted as being a new annual award, but the award was NEVER given out again!

In my case, my two main witnesses received harassing treatment and were calling me to tell me about sudden performance issues they were being alleged to have. They both felt that they were being told to shut up about what they witnessed and heard being said to me.

These are the things you should try to expose because they show people’s motive to lie on you. Some people do not need money to lie. They will lie simply to win favor with your employer and they will HOPE that lying provides them a benefit somewhere along the line. These types of people may feel lying just amounts to office politics and smartly playing the corporate game, so they will take down anyone that may present them with a problem and they will do whatever it takes to show they are a team player.

Some people have a motivation to lie in order to protect someone in the workplace that is highly valued, that they have a close relationship with, etc. You can help prove motivation by showing the links between staff, managers, important business deals, etc.

Corroboration

--Is there witness testimony?

--Is there physical evidence?

You need to create and maintain a list of witnesses that can back up your story of workplace events. If employees resign, that have witnessed your mistreatment, get their contact information or—at the very least—snoop around and find out what company they’ve gone to work for. You can always look them up later.

If possible, get your witnesses to write statements about what they’ve seen. Ask them to get the statements notarized. Someone close to you may be willing to do this! If you think someone would be hesitant to provide you a statement or even to write down what happened in an email, trap them. Yes, I hate to go there, but sometimes you have to trick people into telling the truth. Just see if you can get the person to engage in an email conversation with you about the incident. You can be like, “Can you believe she called me a ------ ?” And, keep the conversation going as long as possible to show that you were called an offensive name, as per this example, and that someone else heard the slur.

As far as physical evidence, document everything, save all hard copies of important and relevant paperwork (e.g., administrative forms, timesheets, etc.), forward important email, memos, etc. to your personal internet account, and if there has been physical violence—take pictures. If there has been physical violence, you should also call the police and make a report. You can also secretly tape record conversations and meetings. Even if it’s not admissible in court, you can use it to convince an investigator, lawyer, etc. to understand that your case is with merit and should be investigated.

Past Record

--Does your employer have a history of similar behavior and allegations?

You saw how they did Michael Jackson at his trial. Right or wrong, when there is an accusation, there is also an attempt to show a pattern of bad behavior. If you are under attack by your employer, you already know what I am talking about. In my case, one false allegation led to another and another. Before you knew it, my employer was trolling through my previous performance evaluations from years before and they were taking a sentence or two from the section about improving performance. They added this information to my current review and then wrote, in my latest review, that I was habitually and continually having these problems. This was a lie, but they were smart. They needed to make me a problem employee. They could only do that by pretending that I was consistently engaged in negative behavior. They twisted feedback on minor improvements that any employee could make and made them into a federal case that allegedly warranted me being targeted for HR attention.

This is what employers do, when they’ve committed to a course of action against an employee (e.g., setting a person up for termination, demotion, etc.).

You have to take the same tactic and show how your employer has a past history of engaging in mistreatment, misconduct, not investigating allegations of race-based abuses, or how they’ve previously engaged in discrimination, harassment, retaliation, etc. Ask questions and snoop around. One of your coworkers may have information you can use. Or, you may already know about how someone was dogged out by your employer, but you were uninvolved in the incident. Write down everything you know about that case and any others that are similar or show the same corporate dysfunctions you believe to be a problem in your case. Show the patterns!

Three Components of Circumstantial Evidence

According to the EEOC, the most common method of proving that retaliation was the reason for an adverse action is through circumstantial evidence. A violation is established if there is circumstantial evidence:

1) raising an inference of retaliation - Because you don't have direct evidence you have to show the implications of your evidence by building a thorough case against your employer and its arguments/positions;

2) if your employer fails to produce evidence of a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the challenged action (firing, demotions, suspension, transfer to a hard to reach location, being stripped of assignments, harassment, retaliation, etc.) - Are your employer's reasons for its actions against you plausible/believable? You have to focus on exposing their lies and destroying their cover story; or

3) if the reason advanced by the employer is a pretext to hide the retaliatory motive - You can show pretext by demonstrating that your employer treated you differently than similarly situated employees (similar jobs/titles, location/job site, job levels/classification, etc.).

Also consider that an initial inference of retaliation arises where there is proof that the protected activity and the adverse action were related. Typically, the link is demonstrated by evidence that:

-- the adverse action occurred shortly after the protected activity; and

-- the person who undertook the adverse action was aware of the complainant's protected activity (opposing discrimination, participating in an investigation, etc.) before taking the action.

So, if you file a complaint against your employer, internally or externally, alleging discriminatory practices, retaliation, etc. and you suddenly become targeted with adverse actions like increased surveillance and heightened scrutiny, unjustified negative performance evaluations, denial of a promotion, etc., you should link the timing of filing your complaint with the timing of a quick response by your employer that included adverse actions. Point out that those engaged in executing the performance action knew of your complaint/oppostion to discriminatory practices.

Even if your employer waits to execute adverse actions, you can still prove retaliation, etc. through other circumstantial evidence.

Heightened Scrutiny and Increased Surveillance

If you file a complaint of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, etc. against your employer, your employer may respond by producing what appears to be evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for whatever employment action was taken against you. However, legally, a violation would still be found if the explanation provided by your employer is a pretext designed to hide the true retaliatory motive.

Typically, pretext is proved through evidence that an employer treated a complainant differently from similarly situated employees or that the employer's explanation for an adverse action is not believable. An adverse action is any action taken to try to keep someone from opposing a discriminatory practice, or from participating in an employment discrimination proceeding.

If you have complained/opposed discrimination, etc. in the workplace, you want to begin tracking and documenting your employer’s pretext(s) by exposing how the so-called legitimate evidence is nothing more than a cover story to justify the real reason they are targeting you—discrimination, etc.

One way you can show pretext is to show that your employer subjected your work performance to heightened scrutiny/increased observation after you engaged in protected activity (e.g., by opposing discriminatory practices, participating in a discrimination proceeding, etc.)

I can give you examples of my experience with heightened scrutiny and increased surveillance. After my former employer was found guilty of retaliating against a Black manager, they came after me for providing truthful testimony about what I heard and witnessed being said and done to the Black manager. I was denied a promotion, denied a justified transfer to take on a new career path for which I was working and received training, and I was subjected to heightened scrutiny and increased surveillance. A couple of weeks after my employers were found guilty of retaliation, I suddenly started hearing about everything that was supposedly being “noticed” or I was told about how things “appeared”. For instance:

-- I was told that people were noticing my hours in and out of the office and that everyone was suddenly questioning my hours. But, my employer wouldn’t accuse me of time sheet fraud, missing deadlines, etc., which would result from an employee not being at work or working shortened days;

--I was suddenly told that everyone questioned if I was really doing work, when I took assignments home. It was stated, “We see you taking things home, but even managers wonder if you really do anything, when you get there.”

--I was suddenly told that all of my emails read “defensively,” with no examples provided and no justification for why this wasn’t a complaint in the previous 7 years I was working at the company;

--I was told that I appeared to be looking for another job; and

--I was told that I appeared to be unhappy and didn’t appear to like working in my department, etc.

Everything I did was scrutinized, pulled apart, and most of it was documented as alleged performance deficiencies. Blanket statements were used to criticize me with no supporting documentation, etc.

So, one of my positions--in my defense to an outside investigating organization--was that I had participated in protected activity (assisting a discrimination investigation) and as a result I was subjected to heightened scrutiny, along with threats to my job security, intimidation, etc.

So, as you fight The Black Factor at work, always think about exposing pretext, the supposedly legitimate reasons why your employer targeted you with some employment action (termination, denial of promotion, suspension, demotion, etc.). If you are the victim of false employment actions and your employer needs to cover it up, they will begin watching you and documenting whatever they think they can use against you.

Think about the levels of heightened scrutiny and increased surveillance that you are being subjected to compared to other similarly situated employees.

You Didn't Leave the Cap Off the Toothpaste!

Racism can be overt in some places, but it’s normally covert at most companies in the nation. So, here’s something to think about, when it comes to a coworker or manager making accusations that you are guilty of some performance deficiency. When you are dealing with racists, in today’s society, very rarely will a coworker be dumb enough to come out and call you a nigger and very rarely will a manager be dumb enough to tell you that you aren’t being promoted because he/she refuses to put a Black person into a certain level job.

As a result, a racist manager like this will come up with other ways to justify denying a promotion to a Black worker. So, the manager will make up a laundry list of false and disingenuous reasons for the denial. The tactics to achieve this/the cap off the toothpaste might include:

--Blaming the Black worker for problems caused by other staff in the department;
--Accusing the Black worker of having a bad attitude or of being insubordinate;
--Stating the Black worker is not a team player; or
--Belittling the accomplishments of the Black worker.

The point is, they will make up some other complaint that hides what their real motivation is—racism! I like to compare this behavior to a couple that has moved in together only to find themselves at each other’s throats. He says the problem is that she leaves the cap of the toothpaste. She says the problem is that he leaves the toilet seat up. Neither of those is the real reason why the couple is at odds. Both of those reasons are simply excuses and cover stories to conceal an underlying problem.

Well, that’s how it is at work. Although you should always do everything in your power to avoid giving White workers and managers ammunition to use against you, remember that any incident or discussion can be twisted and manipulated to fulfill someone’s agenda. Something as simple as the proverbial cap being left off the toothpaste can be sold as if you damn near thrust your middle finger into the client’s face and knocked the person out of a chair!

In my case, I received a report from another office of our company. This report was time sensitive and required feedback from a couple of staff before it could go to our editors for copyediting. So, when I got the report, I emailed it to the other staff that needed to provide input. I included that I’d just received the report—hadn’t reviewed it yet—and asked if everyone could review it—quickly—and mark up a copy with any ADDITIONAL CONTENT that should be included. At that time, I would make a master document with ALL additions and any other changes (read: edits) for our editing team.

I was called into a meeting and criticized because the report, written by staff all senior to me, had a couple of typos in it (exactly 2 typos). I was told that I should have read the report and caught the typos before sending it to other staff for review. The Vice President of our office and her highly senior staff wrote the document and supposedly reviewed it. They were senior to those in my office and just wanted us to add any other thoughts or nuggets that could improve the whole report. Yet, the senior staff were not criticized for sending a report for review that was proofed, but still contained a couple of typos. I was told it was MY FAULT and that I wouldn’t be promoted because those are the sorts of things I should do, in order to work at the next level.

ONE WHITE WOMAN made the complaint about the two typos to my supervisor. She was a known racist in my department. She had a problem with at least 3 other Black women with brown or dark complexions. There were only about 6 Black women at the site out of about 150 employees.

So, my supervisor relays the complaint to me, telling me that I wasn’t going to be promoted, didn’t know how to multi-task, didn’t know how to prioritize my work, and that I didn’t set aside enough time to support this racist’s project.

Yes, ALL THAT from 2 friggin’ typos that came directly from a WHITE VP and her WHITE staff!! The power of White people making complaints against someone Black can have that much weight in some offices and at some companies. How do you extrapolate that many negative connotations from one stupid and petty complaint? All of that extra crap came from left field and has my former employers currently involved in an investigation--right now!

On top of all this, White logic at my company indicated that editors don’t catch typos. Yes, that’s what I was told. Editors are paid to catch typos and other errors, but they don’t. Now, if that logic is true and editors can’t or don’t catch typos, how much success will regular employees have in proofing documents? It’s just a dumb argument to try to use against someone. Professional editors can’t catch these things, but you’re being punished because you didn’t! On top of that, I never claimed to have read or edited the document. It was like, “Anything you want to add to this before it gets proofed?” How hard is that to understand?

Yet, I was told I wouldn’t get a promotion because the assumption was made that I was not going to review the document. And, that even if I did, and didn’t catch the typos—the editors also wouldn’t have caught the typos! I was told the clients would have received a report with typos in it and that it would have been my fault.

HOW MUCH SENSE DOES THAT MAKE?

If you want to argue that all errors should be removed from a first draft before it can be reviewed by anyone else on a team, than you should send that report to your editors in order to catch EVERYTHING! Or, is the argument to quickly fix typos, but leave all grammatical errors and any other problems in place prior to review? That doesn’t make sense to me, but that’s clearly the expectation. I was told that I should have fixed the typos and not worried about any other problems with the report. Again, HOW MUCH SENSE DOES THAT MAKE? Fix the typos, but leave any inconsistencies and logic errors alone? If it’s okay for review with errors, it’s okay for review with errors. I didn’t do anything that hadn’t been done many times before, when it comes to quick team reviews.

But, it’s the cap was left off the toothpaste argument! It’s the excuse to justify discrimination. After telling me I wouldn’t be promoted, the White coworker (who made the complaint about the typos) and who had outstanding complaints against her regarding her project management abilities (or lack thereof) and her poor communication style (causing problems in other departments) was promoted. There were no complaints like that against me, but I was told I couldn’t be promoted because of a couple of typos made by a Vice President and her senior staff in a NON-FINAL/NON-EDITED VERION OF A DOCUMENT. This is one of the issues I raised in my external complaint against and investigation of this employer.

So, regardless of an issue that is being presented as legitimate, it’s up to you to show that the arguments being used by your employer or manager are nothing more than a pretext to hide their true motives, which are racist, discriminatory and/or retaliatory in nature. You have to build a clichéd house of cards comprised of verifiable testimony (from coworkers or others that have witnessed your mistreatment) and physical evidence (email or other documentation) that can’t be refuted by your employer. Don't let someone use a petty argument to derail your career or to discriminate against you.